Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKEH in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bristol Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE RAILWAYS, FRANCE.

Sir J. D. REES: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has information to the effect that it is proposed to hand over the State railways in France to private company direction,
in view to better and more economical management?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I understand that a committee appointed by the French Minister of Public Works to prepare a scheme for the re-organisation of the State railways has recommended that they should be leased to a company, part of the capital of the company to be reserved for provincial and municipal authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPOSTS AND EXPORTS, GEEMANY.

Mr. HASLAM: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state, in Dutch florins, the published value of imports from Germany into Holland of manufactured and partly manufactured goods for the years 1913, 1920, and 1921; the similar figures with regard to the same category of imports respectively into Switzerland, stated in Swiss francs; and for Denmark and Sweden, in kronen, for the years above mentioned?

Mr. BALDWIN: As the answer involves a statistical table, I will, with the permission of the House, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPOBT.

Following is the table:

Statement showing the value of Imports of Manufactured and Partly Manufactured Articles other than Food, into the Undermentioned Countries from Germany in each of the years 1913, 1920, and 1921 so far as information is available.


Countries.
Unit of Currency
1913.
1920.
1921.


Netherlands
…
…
Gulden (Florins)
(a)
717,922,000
493,092,000(c)


Switzerland
…
…
Francs.
353,268,000
558,366,000
(d)


Denmark
…
…
Kroner.
171,506,000
441,675,000
(d)


Sweden
…
…
Kronor.
170,913,000
240,065,000 (b)
(d)


(a) In view of the difference between the basis on which the trade accounts of the Netherlands were prepared in 1913 and in and after 1917, the compilation of aggregates for 1913 covering the classes of articles specified in the question would not furnish figures comparable with those for 1920 and 1921 given in the table.


(b) Particulars for 1919. Details for later years are not yet available.


(c) Provisional figures. Full and complete details not yet available.


(d) Particulars for 1921 have not yet been received.

Mr. HANNON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value in pounds sterling of German imports and exports for each of the last six months, the value in sterling being calculated from the internal value of the mark in each of the months concerned?

Mr. BALDWIN: As the answer to this question involves a statistical statement, I will, with the permission of the House, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Month.
Imports.
Exports.


Thousand Marks (Paper).
Thousand £ calculated at the average rates of current exchange.
Thousand Marks (Paper).
Thousand £ calculated at the average rates of current exchange.


1921.






August
…
9,382,464
30,514
6,663,319
21,671


September
…
9,883,669
25,759
7,492,452
19,527


October
…
13,814,359
23,945
9,681,495
16,782


November
…
12,272,582
12,033
11,886,308
11,654


December
…
13,701,651
16,540
14,467,844
17,465


1922.






January
…
1,12,634,242
15,621
14,393,796
17,796

The precise nature of the calculation indicated in the question is not clear. The following further statement shows, however, the official index number of wholesale prices in Germany and the approximate results of converting the values of imports and exports into sterling at rates proportionate to those index numbers, the index number of 100 being

The following is statement promised:

The following statement shows the value of the imports into and exports from Germany in each of the six months, August, 1921, to January, 1922, as officially reported in terms of paper marks, and at the sterling equivalent of those values calculated at the average rates quoted for Berlin-London exchange in the several months:

taken to correspond with the pre-War average rate of exchange. The general index number of prices in Germany is calculated from the price variations of a limited and selected group of commodities and is unlikely to represent accurately the price variations of the aggregates of commodities imported or exported.

Month.
Official Index Number of Wholesale price (Average for 1913=100.)
Sterling values calculated at rates of exchange proportionate to the Official Index Numbers.


Imports.
Exports.


1921.

Million £
Million £


August
…
…
1,917
24.0
17.0


September
…
…
2,067
23.4
17.7


October
…
…
2,460
27.5
19.3


November
…
…
3,416
17.6
17.0


December
…
…
3,487
19.2
20.3


1922.





January
…
…
3,665
16.9
19.2

LIME GREEN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had further consideration given to the difficulty experienced by colour and paint manufacturers owing to the obstacles placed in the way of their obtaining supplies of lime green from abroad; and if he is aware that the lime green produced in this country costs nearly twice as much as foreign lime green and is of inferior quality, and that orders and trade are still being lost to British manufacturers of paint and colours owing to these hampering restrictions?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers given to him on the 6th March, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the 6th March he stated that there was not much difference in the price of the English lime green, and that it was just as good as the foreign; and is he aware that that is entirely wrong, and he has been misinformed? The price is nearly double that at which it can be bought abroad, and is inferior in quality. What has the right hon. Gentleman to say?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the technical committee which investigated this matter was quite satisfied that there was no serious ground for complaint on the part of his friends.

MERCHANDISE MARKS.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the
Government propose to introduce the Bill to deal with merchandise marks?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot yet commit myself to any definite date, but I hope that the Bill may be introduced without undue delay.

Mr. TERRELL: Does that mean before Easter?

Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend will realise that there is very little time before Easter for any Debate on a Bill of that kind. If I can introduce it before Easter, I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. TERRELL: Is there any reason why it should not be introduced in another place?

Mr. BALDWIN: That is worthy of consideration.

FOREIGN MANUFACTURED GOODS.

Mr. KILEY: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of imports of foreign-manufactured goods into this country for the months January and February of 1920, 1921, and 1922, respectively; and can he give the tonnage figures of the corresponding periods?

Mr. BALDWIN: The total values of goods classed as wholly or mainly manufactured registered during the months specified in the question as imported into the United Kingdom were as follow:—



Month of January.
Month of February.



£
£


1920
…
…
31,528,390
33,042,020


1921
…
…
30,467,084
23,394,362


1922
…
…
17,709,981
16,575,746


These figures are exclusive of manufactured articles of food, drink, or tobacco.
I am unable to state either the tonnage figures corresponding with the values stated, or how much of the values are accounted for by imports from foreign countries and from British Possessions respectively.

DYESTUFFS.

Mr. KILEY: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the considerable dissatisfaction which exists as to the methods adopted by the Dyes Advisory Committee in the granting or refusal of licences, he is prepared to consider the desirability of setting up some tribunal of appeal, similar to the Court of Referees established under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which shall be free from Government control and empowered to arbitrate finally in cases of dispute?

Major M. WOOD: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the complaints by dye users that they are being compelled to use British dyes which are not fast and thus are losing trade, he can see his way to set up some form of appeal from the decisions by the Licensing Committee?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton West (Mr. Newbould) on the 6th March, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. KILEY: But, since then, complaints have been growing every day, and they come from Glasgow and Belfast. Surely some action should be taken.

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member has seen the answer which has been given. I am quite satisfied myself with regard to the competence and impartiality of the Committee, and I am sure that if there were a general desire for such a court of appeal as he suggests, I should have many representations made to me direct from the trade. I have not yet had such representations.

Mr. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these complaints are of a trivial character—of no importance whatever?

Major WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman see the objection there is to people complaining against an appeal committee who are likely to hear complaints from themselves later on?

Major WOOD: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated value of German reparation dyes handed over for sale to the Central Importing Agency for the 12 months ending 31st December, 1921; the amount realised for the same; and the amount of profit or commission made by the agency in question?

Mr. BALDWIN: The estimated value of German reparation dyes handed over for sale to the Central Importing Agency for the 12 months ended 31st December, 1921, was £75,000. I am unable to state what these particular dyes realised, but accounts will be prepared in the ordinary course as at 31st March, 1922, and these will be available later. A commission of 3½ per cent. on realisations, which includes charges for freight, storage, and distribution, is paid to the agency.

Major WOOD: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the names of the members of the Committees set up under Section 2 (3) and Section 2 (6) of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920; what are the salaries or allowances received by them; how many meetings each Committee has held; what is the average attendance; and how many form a quorum in each case?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will circulate a list of the members of the two Committees in the OFFICIAL REPORT. NO salaries and allowances are paid to members of either Committee. The Licensing Committee has held 36 meetings and the Development Committee five meetings, and in both cases practically all the members have attended regularly. A quorum for the Licensing Committee consists of one independent member, one dye-making representative and two consumer representatives. No quorum has been fixed for the Development Committee.

The following is the list of the members of the Committees:

MEMBERS OF THE DYESTUFFS ADVISORY LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Sir Harry V. Kilvert (Chairman), Trafford Park, Manchester.
Mr. G. W. Currie, 83, Cadogan Place, S.W.I.
Mr. George Douglas, Bradford Dyers' Association, Limited, 39, Well Street, Bradford.
9
Mr. E. V. Evans, O.B.E., South Metropolitan Gas Company, 709, Old Kent Road, S.E.
Dr. M. O. Forster, F.R.S., Queen Anne's Mansions, S.W.
Mr. T. N. Grant, Albert Works, Newtown, New Mills, Stockport.
Mr. C. C. Railton, Calico Printers' Association, St. James's Buildings, Oxford Street, Manchester.
Mr. H. B. Shackleton, Messrs. Taylor, Shackleton & Company, Shipley, Bradford.
Mr. T. Taylor, Messrs. Oliver Wilkins & Company, Limited, Derby.
Mr. S. Whetmore, British Dyestuffs Corporation, Imperial House, Kings-way, W.C.2.
Mr. W. J. U. Woolcock, C.B.E., M.P., Association of British Chemical Manufacturers, 166, Piccadilly, W.
Mr. W. Graham, M.B.E. (Secretary), Board of Trade.

MEMBERS OF DYESTUFFS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.

Mr. W. J. U. Woolcock, C.B.E., M.P. (Chairman), Association of British Chemical Manufacturers, 166, Piccadilly, W.
Mr. Percy Ashley, C.B., Board of Trade.
Sir William Alexander, K.B.E., British Dyestuffs Corporation, Imperial House, 17, Kingsway, W.C.
Mr. W. H. Dawson, The British Alizarine Company, Trafford Park, Manchester.
Mr. George Douglas, Bradford Dyers' Association, Limited, 39, Well Street, Bradford.
Mr. E. V. Evans, O.B.E., F.I.C., South Metropolitan Gas Company, 709, Old Kent Road, S.E.
Dr. M. O. Forster, F.R.S. (Director of the Salter Institute of Industrial Chemistry), Queen Anne's Mansions, S.W.
Mr. L. B. Holliday, L. B. Holliday & Company, Limited, Huddersfield.
Dr. Herbert Levinstein, F.I.C., British Dyestuffs Corporation, 70, Spring Gardens, Manchester.
Professor G. T. Morgan, F.R.S., The University, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
Mr. James Morton, Scottish Dyes Limited, Murrell Hill, Carlisle.
10
Mr. Max Muspratt, United Alkali Company, Limited, Cunard Buildings, Liverpool.
Mr. Thomas Taylor, 1, Hammelton Road, Bromley, Kent.
Mr. Norman Thomas, Armament Supply Department, Admiralty, S.W.1.
Mr. G. S. Whitham, War Office, FD3, Imperial House, S.W.1.
Mr. W. H. Dixon, Bent House, Little-borough, Lancs.
Mr. W. Graham, M.B.E. (Secretary), Board of Trade.

GERMAN MARK (EXCHANGE VALUE).

Mr. HANNON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether the current exchange with Germany on 13th March, 1922, was 1,120 to 1,145 marks to the £ sterling; whether he can state the number of marks required to purchase in Germany the same volume of commodities as could be purchased by the £ sterling in Great Britain; and whether the Board of Trade will publish in its "Journal" each month in future, a statement showing the internal and external values of the German mark?

Mr. BALDWIN: The range of quotations on 13th March, 1922, for exchange between Berlin and London, as stated in the "Times," was as given in the first part of the question. With reference to the second part of the question, the answer would probably vary considerably with the choice of commodities selected for the comparison proposed, but I am having circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT, in reply to the hon. Member's last question, index numbers of wholesale prices in Germany, which convey a general idea of the position. I will have these index numbers published periodically in the "Board of Trade Journal."

BEER (PRICES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can report any progress in his investigations into the price of beer charged to the public; and whether he is looking into the profits made by the majority of brewery companies during the last few years in the course of these investigations?

Mr. BALDWIN: The inquiry has not yet been completed. So far as it has gone, and subject to any corrections which may be necessary as the consequence of further inquiries, the results include the following:
The margin between the cost of brewing beer, including the duty, and its cost as delivered to consumers by retailers has, since the Armistice, been about 50 per cent. greater than it was before the War. Considering the general increase in the cost of goods and services, I do not regard the increased margin as excessive. There was a decrease in the cost of brewing materials to the brewer in 1921, as compared with 1920, but, owing to the greater gravity of the beer brewed in 1921, the increase of duty per bulk barrel more than offset the reduction in cost of materials. With regard to the last part of the question, the investigation is proceeding.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the final Report will be laid, or his final conclusions arrived at?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would not like to name a date, but I do not think it will be long.

SALE OF FOOD ORDER.

Mr. CLYNES: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the pledge given by the Government during the period of food control, he can now give an assurance that the necessary legislation to give permanent statutory effect to the provisions of the Sale of Food Order safeguarding the consumer with regard to the sale of bread by weight, the sale of tea by net weight, and the labelling of imported produce, will us introduced without delay?

Mr. BALDWIN: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my right hon. Friend on the 23rd February.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

COMMITTEE REPOETS.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in
a position to state the action which the Government propose to take to bring into operation Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act in regard to industries where the Reports of the Committees have been received?

Mr. BALDWIN: This matter is still under consideration.

Mr. TERRELL: When does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to give an answer to this question?

Mr. BALDWIN: I said, in reply to a question the other day, very shortly, and I still hope very shortly.

Mr. TERRELL: Will that be before Easter?

Mr. BALDWIN: Oh, yes; certainly.

Dr. MURRAY: Has not a Minister declared that the policy of the Government is full-blooded Free Trade?

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.

Mr. KILEY: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent meeting of the Central and Associated Chamber of Agriculture in London, when a resolution urging the repeal of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, in so far as it relates to agricultural implements and other requisites, was passed; if so, whether he has given it consideration; and what decision has been arrived at in this matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question whether agricultural implements should be excluded from Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act was fully debated by this House last August, and I am not prepared to recommend the reversal of the decision then taken.

FABRIC GLOVES.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, at the inquiry recently instituted by him to consider unemployment in the fabric glove industry, it was stated that, whereas this industry had 12,000 people employed in 1919–20, there were only 1,750 now employed, of which many were on short time; whether he is aware that the Minister of Labour states that on the 28th February there were only
609 glove makers (including fabric, leather, wool, etc.), registered as unemployed and 507 as working short time; and will he bear this in mind before he makes any Order imposing a duty on imported fabric gloves?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the evidence regarding unemployment which was given before the Committee and also of the statement by the Minister of Labour, which is referred to in the question. The discrepancy is no doubt largely due to the fact that the official figures do not cover out-workers, to which class I am informed a large proportion of the total number of persons employed in this industry belong. The hon. Member may rest assured that all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. RAPER: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total emolument paid to Mr. Wintour, as general manager of the British Empire Exhibition; and what were the previous salaries paid to this gentleman when he was associated with, respectively, the Food Controller's Department and the Inter-Allied Trade and Banking Corporation?

Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington North on the 10th May last. As regards the second part of the question, Mr. Wintour's salary at the Ministry of Food was £1,750 per annum. I do not know what salary was paid to Mr. Wintour by the company referred to in the last part of the question.

Mr. RAPER: Is the figure the right hon. Gentleman mentioned also the one he mentioned in the previous reply to the hon. Member for North Islington? Were those salaries free of Income Tax?

Mr. BALDWIN: I know of no salaries paid free of tax.

Mr. RAPER: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what the item of £125,000, set down as from concessionaires, in the statement published in the Press on 16th December was for; if the concessions in question were open to competition; whether the whole or part of
the amusements section has been either given, or promised to Mr. L. Hart; if according to the memorandum of association, any member of the executive council or of any committee of the exhibition may derive benefit from the exhibition provided he discloses the same; and whether any of the guarantors have been given or promised any quid pro quo whatsoever in exchange for having guaranteed a certain sum?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am informed that the item of £125,000 included in the list of British Empire Exhibition guarantees published in the Press related to a guarantee given by Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons, the firm to whom the building contract was awarded. Lord South-borough, the chairman of the finance committee, has, in a letter to the "Times," dated 17th February, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, explained fully the terms on which the executive council awarded this contract after opportunity had been given to other firms to quote. No concession has been given or promised to Mr. L. Hart. The memorandum of association of the British Empire Exhibition (1924), Incorporated, provides that no member of the executive council or of any committee can receive any remuneration or other benefit in money or money's worth from the exhibition, with the exception of the repayment of out-of-pocket expenses and the payment of interest on loans. The memorandum contains the usual provision that the association are not to be debarred from making payments to railway, gas, electric lighting, water, cable or telephone companies of which a member of the council or committee may be a member, or any other company in which a member of the council or committee holds not more than one-hundredth part of the capital. No quid pro quo whatsoever has been given or promised to any individual guarantor in consideration of his having contributed to the guarantee fund, but it is the intention of the council, as far as practicable, to accord preference in the allotment of exhibiting space to those who have supported the exhibition by contributing to the guarantee fund. The allocation of all contracts and concessions will be decided solely on the merits of each case. The primary consideration in determining their award will be to secure the best possible services on the best possible
terms, which in some cases will quite properly include a contribution to the guarantee fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

LONDON DAY TRAINING COLLEGE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Board in December last cut down and limited, with out warning, admissions to the London Day Training College, and that in this manner many would be teachers were suddenly deprived of the chance of completing their training although qualified therefor; and whether such cases can be reconsidered in order to avoid heavy financial loss to poor people?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The recognised accommodation of the London Day Training College was originally 350 providing for the admission of about 90 students yearly Since 1918 the Board have allowed an excess of admissions, largely to meet the needs of ex-service students; but in August last they found it necessary to check the continuous increase in the size of the College and to warn the Council that the number of students accepted for September, 1922, must be restricted. After discussion this number was, in December, 1921, provisionally fixed at 130, which is still considerably above the number of admissions before the War, and will leave the College with a total roll of about 750.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a lot of students who have qualified for entrance to this College, and they now find themselves stopped in mid-career, and will he look into the possibility of financial consideration?

Mr. FISHER: I am afraid there is some hardship involved in these restrictions, but I do not see my way to go beyond my answer.

CHILDREN (THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES).

Sir J. D. REES: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education in view of the fact that the London County Council in curred a charge of £2,945 for taking children of the council schools to the play,
whether his Department has under preparation any Regulation which will render impossible in future expenditure of public funds for such a purpose?

Mr. FISHER: I may refer the hon. Baronet to the answers which I gave on 9th and 16th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James).

Sir J. D. REES: Is any action going to be taken to render a repetition impossible?

Mr. FISHER: I said that I did not propose to recognise for grant expenditure of this kind by Local Education Authorities.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be much better to leave the matter to the discretion of the London County Council Education Committee?

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear—

Mr. FISHER: No.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no further money will be spent for the purpose without the sanction of Parliament?

SCHOOLS (INSPECTION).

Mr. HURD: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education, if, from the points of view both of national economy and of educational efficiency, he has considered the advantage of handing over the duty of the inspection of schools to the university authorities in each locality as regards education and to the local sanitary authorities as regards sites, buildings, and medical matters; and, if not, will he invite a small Committee of Members of this House to investigate the feasibility of such a change?

Mr. FISHER: I have considered the hon. Member's suggestion, but I do not see my way to adopt it.

Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentle man say why he refuses to effect economy and increased efficiency by some such method?

Mr. FISHER: So long as Parliament grants money for the support of the schools of the country it is clear that there must be some means of inspecting the schools.

Mr. HURD: As a matter of fact is it not a fact that a part, if not the greater part, of this money does not come from this Parliament but direct from the local rates?

Mr. FISHER: No, Sir; it is the reverse of that.

DIRECTORS AND SECRETARIES (SUPERANNUATION).

Major JOHN EDWARDS: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in the proposed revision of the teachers' pension scheme under the Superannuation Act, 1918, he will consider the claims of directors and secretaries for education and inspectors under local education authorities to be included on a similar contributory basis to that of teachers?

Mr. FISHER: For the purpose of the immediate legislation which is contemplated to give effect to the decisions of the Government on the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure, it will not be possible to extend the benefits of the Act to persons who are not at present within its scope.

Major EDWARDS: Is there any truth in the assertion that a promise was given by him through his secretaries that whenever the scheme came up for modification they would be included in it?

Mr. FISHER: The object of the Bill is to reduce the charge on public funds, not to increase it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SOVIET OFFICES, LONDON.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the report that the Soviet Republic have acquired a further set of offices to Soviet House, in the City of London, in addition to the offices already bought by them for £350,000; whether the sum of £35,000 was paid for these further offices; whether he can indicate the source of the moneys which are being expended on luxurious premise3 in this country by the Soviet Government; and can he state why these moneys are not being applied by that Government in relief of the starving population of Russia?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The answer to the first part of
the question is in the affirmative. The points raised in the other parts of the question are not subjects on which I have any official information, but I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer that I gave on Wednesday last on this subject.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these offices are being acquired for the purposes of revolutionary propaganda?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information that leads me to suppose so.

CHILDREN (EMIGRATION TO ENGLAND).

Mr. FOOT: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has refused permission to Russian children from the famine area to be received in this country, although a party of Russian boys has been admitted to France; and, if so, on what grounds this decision has been taken?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. His Majesty's Government gave very careful consideration to the application for permission to bring to this country a party of Russian children; but, in view of the risks to public health that would be involved, even if the strictest precautions were observed, they decided, with regret, that permission could not be granted.

Mr. FOOT: Did not the Minister of Health say that if certain precautions were taken admittance could take place under the same conditions as to France and other countries?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, but these precautions were only in case the Government decided that the children could be brought here. That is far from indicating any consent that they could come.

EXECUTIONS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 37.
asked the Prime Minister if he has any official information to the effect that since October, 1917, there have been executed by the Soviet authorities in Russia 28 bishops, 1,215 priests, 6,775 schoolmasters and professors, 8,800 physicians, 54,650 officers, 260,000 soldiers, 10,500 police officers, 48,500 soldier police, 12,950 landowners, 355,250
intellectuals, 193,350 workmen, 815,000 peasants, a total of 1,766,118 executions; and, if so, does he intend to make representations on this subject before the Genoa Conference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): His Majesty's Government have no information as to the numbers executed by the Soviet authorities. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the Government make inquiries into these very serious allegations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will advise me how to set about it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who makes these allegations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not know.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The "Morning Post."

M. KRASSIN.

Major BARNETT: 84.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a speech recently made by M. Krassin to a mass meeting of Red Army soldiers in Russia, in which he is reported to have said that in every British working man's house the royal portraits have been replaced by portraits of Lenin and Trotsky; whether he will take steps to ascertain whether such report is correct; and, in the event of its proving to be correct, whether he will deprive this alien of the passport facilities which he has hitherto enjoyed?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no knowledge of the report referred to, but if the hon. and gallant Member will provide details I will cause inquiries to be made. The third part of the question does not arise.

RAND DISTURBANCES.

Captain Viscount CURZ0N: 26.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the recent statement of General Smuts to the effect that Bolshevist activity is responsible for the serious situation on the Rand, and to the piratical action of
the Soviet warships against British fishing craft on the high seas; and, in view of these breaches of faith on the part of the Soviet Government, will His Majesty's Government retract the invitation given to that Government to be represented at the Genoa Conference?

Mr. RAPER: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether any responsibility for the deplorable outbreaks on the Band has been traced to Russian Bolshevists?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official information on the subject of the allegation that has appeared in the Press that the recent outbreaks on the Rand have been traced to the activities of Russian Bolshevists, nor have I seen any statement of General Smuts to that effect. As regards the second part of my Noble Friend's question, I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 13th March in reply to questions on this subject, and as regards the last part I would refer to the answer given by the Prime Minister on the 13th February last.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: When considering this question will the right hon. Gentleman also remember the admitted statement of the late Secretary of State for India that Bolshevist propaganda was one of the four causes responsible for the unrest of that country at the present time?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not the fact that several of the men arrested in Johannesburg could only speak Russian?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no more information as to the happenings on the Band than is open to every Member of the House through the daily papers.

Viscount CURZ0N: Did not General Smuts make a statement to the effect that the troubles on the Rand was due to the extremist leaders, and if it is proved that there were Bolshevist agencies will that affect the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards Russia?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite an hypothetical question.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.

Mr. G. TERRELI: 27.
asked the Prime Minister when the Government intend to
introduce the promised Resolutions for the reform of the Second Chamber?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not able to fix a date for the introduction of these Resolutions.

Mr. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman fix a date between now and Easter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In my answer to my hon. Friend I say that I am not yet in a position to fix a date.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 39.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, independently of any Resolutions in another place for the reform of the Second Chamber, this House will be given an early opportunity of discussing the present constitutional relations between the two Houses?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do; not consider that it would be helpful, even if time permitted, to discuss in this House the question raised by my hon. Friend until the Resolutions embodying the proposals of the Government have been introduced.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Do the Government intend to pass a Bill through this House dealing with the relations; between the two Chambers before the dissolution of Parliament?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend will give me precise particulars of the date of the Dissolution, I could answer his question with greater confidence. It is my desire that we should make definite progress with this Bill before we have to go to a Dissolution.

Captain W. BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say unreservedly that the Government intend to pass this legislation before they dissolve?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I say that if we have time, we shall pass it.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

PRISONERS' RELEASE (DERBY).

Sir W. DAVISON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Sir James Craig, as Prime Minister in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, that the
release of the Derry prisoners by the Lord Lieutenant before trial or sentence was not on the advice nor with the consent of the Government of Northern Ireland; if he will inform the House on whose advice the Lord Lieutenant, as representing His Majesty the King, acted in this matter; and, if on the advice of His Majesty's Ministers in the British Parliament, will he say why they departed from constitutional precedent in order to tender advice to His Majesty's representative with regard to the release of prisoners in an area which has its own duly constituted Government which is responsible for the administration of law and order within such area?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): In reply to the first part of the question, Sir James Craig, as Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, informed the Lord Lieutenant through me that the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland had issued instructions to the Crown Solicitor that the prisoners referred to were not to be prosecuted. His Excellency thereupon directed the release of the prisoners. The second and third parts of the question do not arise.

Sir W. DAVISON: That is not a reply to my question at all. I asked if there was any constitutional precedent for His Majesty's representative not acting on the advice of the Parliament in the area where an independent Parliament had been set up; I should like a reply to that part of the question—it is on the Paper.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Circumstances in Ireland at the present time are very peculiar.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why, under the circumstances, is the only constituted Government of Northern Ireland continually flouted by His Majesty's Ministers, whilst the slightest suggestion from the Provisional Government receives the most instant attention?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I believe that to be a complete misrepresentation of the actual situation.

Sir J. BUTCHER: If the prisoners were not prosecuted or convicted, why was it necessary for the Lord Lieutenant to act at all?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The position was this: that the prisoners were in gaol.
They had been called to the Assizes, which were not due to begin for some weeks. The Northern Attorney-General arrived at the conclusion that there was no ground for prosecuting these men—on a calculation of the evidence and on general grounds. He instructed the Crown Solicitor for the county of Tyrone accordingly. In the ordinary course those men would have been admitted to bail, brought up formally at the next Assizes, "No Bill" would have been presented, and they would have been immediately discharged. These men, however, refused to apply for bail. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I am only stating the fact. Apparently it was their intention to remain contumaciously in gaol, for some reason, at the public expense— The upshot was that the Lord Lieutenant took the action he did in directing their release, and they were accordingly ejected from gaol.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why was the Government of Northern Ireland not consulted before these men were ejected from gaol: it was at the expense of the Northern Government that they were kept there?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government of Northern Ireland were frequently consulted, but their responsibility in the matter was limited to authorising their Attorney-General to instruct the Crown Solicitor not to proceed with the case.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there any precedent for this—

Mr. SPEAKER: called upon Lieut.-Colonel Guinness to put Question No. 32.—(See col. 28.)

FREE STATE CONSTITUTION.

Sir W. DAVISON: 33.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce the Irish Free State Constitution Bill; whether the House will be given an opportunity of amending any of the Clauses of the Constitution which have been drafted by the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State, or whether the said Constitution will be embodied in a schedule to the Bill which it will be necessary for the House to accept as a whole or to reject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government have endeavoured to make it clear, both IB. reply to questions on the subject and
in the course of the recent Debates, that in accordance with precedent the terms of the constitution will be formulated in Ireland by the Irish Provisional Government. His Majesty's Government must, of course, be afforded an opportunity of satisfying themselves that the Constitution is in conformity with the Treaty. The Constitution and the Treaty will be submitted by the Provisional Government to the Irish people at an election. It will be open to either House of Parliament, immediately the Constitution is published, to challenge the intentions of His Majesty's Government in regard to it. After the Irish people have at an election accepted the Treaty and the Constitution, a Bill will be introduced in this House confirming the Constitution and completing the ratification of the Treaty. Nothing can deprive Parliament of its right to reject or to amend to any extent legislation which is placed before it, but His Majesty's Government will not be able to accept any amendment in conflict with Treaties or agreements which they have concluded with other Governments.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has the British Parliament, which is giving a constitution to Southern Ireland, not a right to know the terms of the constitution which it is giving before that constitution is submitted to the electorate of Southern Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Obviously, they have that right.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: What is the use of the House of Commons challenging the constitution if the Government has already given its assent to it? Is it not according to precedent, as in the cases of Australia and South Africa, for the constitution to be presented to the House before the Government gives its assent to it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The House has to give its formal assent to the constitution by a Bill which completes the process of ratifying the Treaty. The House exercises its authority by ratifying or amending as it chooses. The powers of Parliament are absolutely unlimited.

MURDERS.

Viscount CURZON: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the atrocities committed
upon helpless members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in St. Bride's Home, in Galway; and whether he can state whether the Government propose to take any steps to give protection to their servants and to the loyalists in Southern Ireland, and to take any steps to put a stop to such outrages?

Sir F. HALL: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the House any information with regard to the murder in St. Bride's Home Hospital, Galway, on Wednesday, the 15th March, of Sergeants Gibbons and Gilmartin, of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and if he will state what steps the Government propose to take, beyond the exchange of friendly communications with the Provisional Government, to ensure the punishment of the murderers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will answer these two questions, and a question of which the hon. Member for Kensington South (Sir W. Davison) has given me private notice, together. I have as yet no information as to the circumstances of these terrible and atrocious murders beyond that which has already appeared in the public Press. The two sergeants and Cassidy were deliberately shot dead in bed by four masked men. Both sergeants were seriously ill at the time, and one of them was not expected to recover, while Cassidy was suffering from wounds inflicted upon him a short time previously by unknown men. All three were powerless to offer any resistance. The coroner's jury found a verdict of wilful murder by persons unknown, and expressed sympathy with the relatives of the victims. This exhibition of savagery has aroused universal horror and indignation in the neighbourhood, and, indeed, I believe, throughout the greater part of Ireland, and it has been condemned in the very strongest terms by the Bishop of the diocese and by the local clergy in sermons preached on St. Patrick's Day. The Provisional Government, I am assured, are making every endeavour to trace and apprehend the criminals, and in this they are receiving support and assistance from the inhabitants of the district; but I regret that it has not yet been possible to make any arrests. I need hardly add that all information in the possession of the police and the British authorities has been placed at the disposal of the Provisional
Government, but it does not at the moment appear that there is any further assistance which can be rendered to them.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to the last sentence of my Question No. 76?

Sir F. HALL: And to the last part of No. 77?

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also answer that part of my question in which I ask what steps the British Government are taking to prevent the recurrence of such outrages, and protect the lives and property of forces of the Crown and law-abiding citizens in Southern Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are endeavouring to consolidate and secure the authority of the Provisional Government and to afford it legal sanction, and to equip it with the means of enforcing its authority in all parts of the country.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that the Government have now abandoned all their servants and these loyalists in this area?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is there any precedent for a great nation such as this abandoning the government of a country for which they have for years been responsible, before another Government is in a position to take it over?

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not have a Debate on the matter.

ARMS AND AMMUNITION.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 80.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can now announce the arrangements that have been made for restoring the arms and ammunition taken from loyal subjects during the past two or three years by order of His Majesty's Government for safe custody by the Government; whether he can give an assurance that these arms and ammunition will be handed over to their lawful owner by officials of His Majesty's Government without passing through other hands; and whether compensation will be made to the owners for any of this property which has been stolen or lost while in the custody of the Government?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): This matter is under consideration, and I hope
to be in a position to make a statement on the subject shortly. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will repeat the question on Thursday of next week.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Baronet bear in mind that for farmers and others who have to kill wood pigeons, rooks, and other things during their sowing season it is very important that this matter should be dealt with at once?

Colonel NEWMAN: Can I write to the Provisional Government if I want my gun sent across carriage forward?

MR. COLLINS (SPEECH).

Sir F. HALL: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the report of the speech recently made by Mr. Michael Collins in Dublin, in which he stated that it had not been possible to beat out the British by force, so the republican ideal had been temporarily surrendered, but that when the British had been driven out by the Treaty the republican ideal would be restored; if any steps have been taken to ascertain whether this report is substantially accurate; and whether it is the intention of the Government, at whatever cost, to prevent the establishment of a republic in Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has not been specially called to this statement, nor do I propose to make the inquiry suggested. As was stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in reply to a question by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University on 16th February last, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to interpret statements made in the course of controversial debate on the other side of the water on the subject of the Treaty. They take their stand on the Treaty and will proceed in full reliance on the determination of their Irish co-signatories to do the same. In reply to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Epping on the 6th instant.

Sir F. HALL: Does the Government consider it of such little moment that a man of Mr. Collins' standing should make
such remarks as that he still intends to set up a Republic?

Mr. SPEAKER: rose
—

Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: 63.
called upon Mr. Rendall to put Question No.See col. 39.
)

COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 32.
asked the Prime Minister how many meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence and of its Sub-committees, respectively, took place during the year 1921?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Standing Defence Sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, has provisionally been performing the functions of the Committee of Imperial Defence, held 19 meetings between its inception in May, 1921, and the end of the year. Apart from this, 103 meetings of Subcommittees of the Committee of Imperial Defence were held in 1921. To these should be added the following meetings, which dealt with matters closely connected with the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence and with which members of the Committee and its staff were accordingly associated:

Cabinet Committees
…
14


Imperial Meetings
…
44


Total
…
58


Grand Total
…
180

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Did the Committee of Imperial Defence ever meet as such under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it met under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister during the year 1921. In consequence of the pressure of work, the Standing Committee was created under the presidency of the Lord President of the Council (Sir A. Balfour).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Who is on the Standing Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I ought to be asked to say that. All
Committees of Imperial Defence are treated as confidential. I do not think there has been more than one instance where the names have been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

BRITISH TEOOPS, SILESIA.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether the cost of the British troops in Silesia is chargeable to Poland and Germany, or does this country have to bear the cost of these troops; and who is responsible for the delay in settling the administration of the industrial area in Silesia which prevents the withdrawal of these troops?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The cost is chargeable to Poland and Germany under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The troops will be withdrawn as soon as the frontier is fixed and notified to the interested Governments, after the ratification of the economic agreement between Germany and Poland now being negotiated by a mixed commission under the presidency of a chairman appointed by the League of Nations.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is the use of charging this to Germany when she is not paying the bill?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: We hope that Germany will pay the bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the British troops be withdrawn simultaneously with those of the other Allied troops?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I shall require notice of that question.

PACIFIC TREATY.

Mr. L. MALONE: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has seen the reports of the debates in the American Senate on the Pacific Treaty and the argument urged against the Treaty that in the event of a Russo-Japanese war, in which Russia would seek to recover Saghalien, Eastern Siberia, and her outlets on the Pacific Ocean, the Powers signatory to the Treaty would be diplomatically bound to take a favourable view of the Japanese case; and
how this country would be affected under the Pacific Treaty should such a war ensure?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am awaiting the full reports of the discussions in the United States Senate, and, until I have had the opportunity of examining them, I am unable to express any opinion on the force of the argument to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. MALONE: When are we going to get a copy of this Treaty, which has already been discussed?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It has not yet been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PRIVATE HOUSES (OCCUPATION).

Sir W. DAVISON: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, which Government Departments are still in possession of any and, if so, how many private houses which were requisitioned during the War under the Defence of the Realm Act; and what, if any, rent is being paid for the same?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): I have been asked to reply, and will hand the hon. Member a list from which he will see that the Admiralty still retain two requisitioned private houses, one of which will be surrendered at the end of this month and the other probably within the next six months. The number held by the Office of Works in London is three, two of which will be surrendered during the next few weeks. The last return prepared by the War Office, in August last, showed that 26 private houses were occupied, involving a total rental of £3,600, but this number has since been reduced.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Do those figures include hotels?

TEMPORARY BUILDINGS.

Mr. DOYLE: 66.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works what sum has been realised during the last 12 months by the sale of wood, bricks, and other material from the Government temporary buildings which have been demolished; what extent in
acreage has been cleared; and whether the material so disposed of has been sold by public auction or by private contract?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I have been asked to answer, as these transactions are carried out by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission. I assume that the question refers to Government offices within the London area. These buildings, together with fixtures and fittings, but excluding all furnishings, have been sold on sealed tender to demolition contractors on condition that everything, including the foundations, is removed by certain dates specified in the contracts. The contractors also have to clear the sites and reinstate ground except only in so far as top soil is concerned. At present work has only been completed in respect of three buildings, namely, the buildings in Victoria Tower Gardens, His Majesty's Office of Works' Stores in Regent's Park, and the Admiralty (Annexe) Buildings on the Mall, St. James's Park. This represents a total area cleared of approximately six acres. It is not in the public interest to disclose the prices which have been obtained.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY RATES (REDUCTION).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 45.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether, seeing that the majority of Scottish railway companies have realised the paralysing effect on trade of high transport charges for coal, coke, and byproducts, and have in consequence altered such charges with immediate benefit to industry in that country, and seeing that similar benefit might be felt in England and Wales, where high railway rates are at the present time seriously hampering the coal trade and all industries dependent on it, he will consider the desirability of bringing pressure to bear upon English railway companies in order that substantial or efficacious reductions of their charges may be brought about?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The hon. and gallant Member appears to overlook the fact that the rail-
way companies in England and Wales made reductions in respect of coal, coke, and patent fuel operative at an earlier date and on a wider basis than did the Scottish companies. I would also refer him to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Hamilton on the 9th instant, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 46.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, whether, seeing that the maintenance of high transport charges represents an attempt on the part of the railway companies to preserve their position without loss under the prevailing industrial and commercial conditions of this country, he is prepared to support the demands of industry generally that the railway companies should bear their share of the common trade adversity; will he take steps to facilitate the reduction of transport charges and particularly those connected with the flat rate and the percentage increase on pre-War rates; and whether such percentage increase might be reduced immediately to 50 per cent. above pre-War rates without material loss to the railway companies?

Mr. NEAL: The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that the Government possession of the railways ceased in August last, and that the Minister has no longer any jurisdiction over railway rates. Some reductions have already been made by the companies, who are, I understand, considering what further concessions can be made. It is, however, open to traders, under Section 60 of the Railways Act of last Session, to apply to the Railway Rates Tribunal for reductions in these rates.

RAILWAY STATISTICS.

Major GLYN: 47.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether the powers granted to the Ministry under the Railways Act, 1921, to obtain statistics from the railway companies are to be insisted upon in view of the expense and trouble the production of such information involves upon the companies, who, having some knowledge of the management of railways, have no need for such information themselves and desire to curtail all needless expenditure?

Mr. NEAL: As I have already reminded the hon. and gallant Member, the obligation of supplying these statistics
was imposed upon the companies by Parliament so recently as last year, and it is not proposed to make any change in the statutory requirements. I am unable to agree that the companies have no need for these statistics. They constitute a general guide to the efficiency of the operation of the railways and, as such, they are of service to the railway managements, which are bound to maintain statistics of this or similar nature for their own purposes. They are, in my opinion, also essential to the work of the Rates Tribunal and as a means of enabling traders and the public generally to avail themselves of their rights in regard to railway charges conferred by the Act.

Colonel MILD MAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the cost of providing these statistics?

Mr. NEAL: I could not say without notice.

Major GLYN: Will the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that the reorganisation of the railways is taking place, realising the difficulties of the railway companies in supplying these figures which are of no use to the companies, reconsider the details of the figures asked for?

Mr. NEAL: The supplementary question is based on a hypothesis with which I cannot agree. The railway companies are of opinion that the figures are of great use.

FISH RATES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if English railway companies are still insisting on fish being paid for in advance for its transport instead of carriage forward; that Scottish railway companies are accepting fish for transport carriage forward; if he is aware that English fish merchants and trawler owners are penalised in consequence in comparison with Scottish merchants and owners; whether prepayment was insisted upon during the War under Government control; and whether the Government have taken any steps to endeavour to have this war-time disability on the fishing industry removed?

Mr. NEAL: The general practice of railway companies is to require prepayment
of charges for the transport of goods (including fish) by passenger train. The exception whereby the Scottish companies accept fish with carriage "to pay" was made primarily to meet the small fishermen in the Western Highlands. I am not aware that the English merchants and trawler owners are prejudiced thereby. The railway companies, who were asked to review the question in November last, replied that they could not see their way to revert to the old practice in view of the considerable addition to their staff which would be necessary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as long as the railway companies get their money before handling the fish they do not care whether it arrives to time or not, and therefore the English fishing industry is prejudiced as compared with the Scottish?

Mr. NEAL: I think two totally different questions are being intermixed. The question of prompt delivery does not seem to me to bear any strict relationship to prepayment.

Mr. TICKLER: Is it not the fact that the arrangement was made on account of representations by the railway companies that it would save a considerable amount of labour during the War and that the restriction could afterwards be removed.

Mr. NEAL: That may be so, but the difficulty remains that to alter the existing practice would involve the employment of a substantial additional staff, without any increase of revenue for it.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).

Colonel NEWMAN: 50.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether, to carry into effect the proposals recently made public with regard to the abolition of the speed limit of mechanically-propelled vehicles in favour of more drastic and better-defined penalties in the case of reckless or dangerous driving, legislation will be necessary: if so, can he say if such, legislation will be introduced this Session; and will such legislation include a provision that no person shall be allowed to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle who has not passed a reasonable test in' skill, physical fitness, and eyesight?

Mr. NEAL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Legislation dealing with the regulation of motor vehicles is under consideration. I cannot say, however, whether it will be possible to introduce a Bill during the present Session, nor do I think it desirable to make any forecast as to its provisions.

SCHOOLCHILDREN (EXCURSION FARES).

Sir F. HALL: 54.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether the railway companies are considering the granting of facilities to enable poor schoolchildren to go to the seaside for one day's excursion during the coming summer; and, if so, whether the fares will be made sufficiently reasonable as to be within the reach of the really poor children?

Mr. NEAL: It is understood that the railway companies propose to grant reduced fares this year in connection with the annual outings of organised parties of juveniles on a similar basis to that obtaining last year.

Sir F. HALL: Can there not be a further reduction on the rates obtaining last year? Will the hon. Gentleman get into touch with the railway companies and see if they cannot make a further reduction?

Mr. NEAL: I understand they have reconsidered the matter, and think not.

TRAMWAY TRACTION (EDINBURGH).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 55.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport the nature of the statutory sanction under which the Edinburgh tramway inquiry is to be held; and whether, having regard to such sanction, the question of amenity can or cannot be included within the scope of the inquiry?

Mr. NEAL: Under the terms of the Edinburgh Corporation Acts and Orders mechanical power can only be used on the tramways with the consent of, and according to a system approved by, the Minister of Transport, whose consent is also necessary to any alteration of the position of the tramlines in the roadway. The purpose of the inquiry is to elicit such information as may be necessary to
enable a correct decision to be arrived at. The safety of the public is, of course, the primary object, but the Minister does not appear to be precluded from taking other matters into consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say definitely whether or not the question of amending can be included within the scope of the inquiry?

Mr. NEAL: I do not propose to limit the discretion of the people holding the inquiry.

Captain BENN: Would it be possible to consult the Edinburgh City Council before the terms of reference are settled, seeing that that is the body chiefly concerned?

Mr. NEAL: The Edinburgh City Council are in full harmony now with the inquiry which is to be held.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. GILBERT: 57.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what has been the total approximate cost of the British Industries Fair at Shepherd's Bush; whether his Department regard it as a trade success; the number of British, Colonial, and foreign buyers who visited the same; can he make any general statement as to the business done there; and whether it has helped to revive trade for British manufacturers who exhibited there?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The total cost of the London section of the British Industries Fair was approximately £35,000. The cost is covered by the payments made by the exhibitors, and the Fair involves no charge on public funds. Taking into consideration the present trade conditions, the Fair is considered by my Department to have been an unquestioned success. The total number of visitors to the Fair, exclusive of re-admissions, amounted to 49,998. A considerable volume of business was transacted, but it is impossible to give even an approximate figure, as firms do not make any return of orders booked, and further, it has been found by experience that a large proportion of the orders secured by exhibitors are not actually placed until after the close of the Fair. There can be
no doubt from the statements made by exhibitors that the Fair has stimulated their trade.

ARABLE LANDS (ASSESSMENTS).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the introduction of legislation whereby preferential assessments may be made upon arable lands under cultivation, with the object of encouraging increased production of cereals and incidentally of giving additional opportunity for employment of agricultural labourers?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I shall be glad to consider any detailed proposals which my hon. Friend may desire to submit with the object of carrying out the proposal he has in mind, but, as at present advised, I am doubtful if the suggestion would secure the result he has in view.

—
Producer's Price per Imperial Gallon.
Retail Price per Quart.



s.
d.

d.


1921—March
…
…
2
4

11


April
…
…
1
11

10


May
…
…
1
2½

9¾


June
…
…
1
2½

8


July
…
…
1
5¾

8


August
…
…
1
10

9


September
…
…
2
0

9


October
…
…
1
9

9


November
…
…
1
11

9


December
…
…
2
1

9


1922—January
…
…
2
1

9


February
…
…
1
11

9


Monthly Average
…
…
1
9¾
Monthly Average
9⅛







= 3
0½








per gallon.

The retail price during the past 12 months has, therefore, been about 68 per cent. higher than the average price received by the producer. In 1913, the producer's price was about 9d. per gallon, and the retail price 4d. per quart, a difference of 78 per cent. The percentage of difference is, therefore, less now than in 1913, but, whereas the actual difference between producers' and re-

MILK PEICES.

Mr. HURD: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the average price paid to the farmer for milk for each of the past 12 months; whether the percentage of difference between that price and the price paid by the consumer is larger now than in 1913; and, if so, by how much?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As the reply to this question includes a large number of figures, I propose, with the permission of the House, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The information obtained by my Department in regard to the prices paid to producers for milk delivered into London during the last 12 months indicates that the average price per Imperial gallon in each month was as set out below. The average retail price in London, as ascertained by the Ministry of Labour, is also stated.

tailers' prices was 9d. a gallon in 1913, it has amounted to 1s. 2¾d. a gallon during the last 12 months.

Mr. HURD: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received information from Somerset farmers that the prices now offered to them by the milk companies are, for April, one-third only of those of last year, and fall as low as
7d. and 8d. in some cases and in others 5d. and 6d. per gallon in May and the succeeding four months; whether, on last season's average yield, these prices will fail to cover rent, taxes, and wages on many holdings; and whether he will bring these facts to the notice of the Cabinet, with a view to a remedy this Session for the inequitable rating of agricultural land?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am informed that wholesale milk dealers generally are offering prices considerably below those paid last year for the summer months, but that few, if any, definite contracts have yet been made. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to the questions put to me on the 8th and 13th instant by the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes, and on the 17th instant by the hon. Member for Yeovil.

Mr. HURD: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is bringing this matter before the Cabinet?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If the hon. Member will look at the answer referred to, he will see that that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

SMALL HOLDINGS (RENTS).

Mr. RENDALL: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what powers he possesses with regard to granting abatements in the rents of ex-soldiers placed on smallholdings by the State and by county councils; in what counties and to what extent he has exercised such powers; and if he is aware that many of the fixed rents payable by these men are based on the prices given for the land, nearly double its present value?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: County councils and councils of county boroughs are required by the Land Settlement (Facilities) Acts, 1919, to let small holdings provided under that Act at the best rent that can reasonably be obtained, and the same policy is followed by the Ministry in letting holdings provided under the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916–18. The Ministry's District Commissioners have been authorised to approve proposals submitted to them by
local authorities in their areas for granting abatements of rent to individual small holders whenever they are satisfied that such abatement is necessary, but I regret that I am not in a position to say in how many counties remissions have been granted. With regard to the last part of the question, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestions that the value of agricultural land has fallen by nearly 50 per cent., nor that the rents charged to ex-service small holders have been fixed in relation to the original cost of the land.

Mr. RENDALL: Have any abatements actually been yet granted?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, I think that is so. The matter has been left to the local authorities who are the owners of these small holdings to make representations to our Commissioners, who have full power to make abatements.

Mr. RENDALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been great delay in granting these abatements that have been applied for by councils?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, and I do not think that that is the case.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the abatement particularly in respect of the fact that the man is an ex-soldier, or for some other reason?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are dealing exclusively with ex-soldiers, under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act.

NAVAL OFFICERS (LODGING ALLOWANCE).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that in the case of Income Tax charged on lodging allowances in pre-War days the rate charged, if any, was the full rate of Income Tax and that the lodging allowances were estimated to provide only just such accommodation as is suitable for the officers concerned, he will say whether these allowances have been increased proportionately to the increased rents now charged; if so, are the increases such as to meet the higher Income Tax now charged; and under what statutory enact-
ment is Income Tax now charged on the lodging allowances which are made in cases of fixed appointments?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The average increase of the present rates of officers' lodging allowance over the pre-War rates is about 51 per cent. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. No salaries or allowances are paid with reference to Income Tax; to do so would be, in effect, to nullify the principle that Income Tax is paid on income derived from public sources in the same way as on income from private business. As regards the third part of the question, lodging allowance is taxable as an emolument of office, under the Rules applicable to Schedule E of the Income Tax Act, 1918.

REGENT'S PARE (GARDEN ENCLOSURE).

Sir CYRIL COBB: 65 and 87.
asked (1) the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any pledge was ever given to Parliament by him or by any of his predecessors that the strip of garden enclosure, extending from York Terrace to Hanover Terrace, round the Outer Circle of Regent's Park, and now leased to key holders up to 5th July, 1922, should after that date be incorporated in the park and open to the public; if so, when that pledge was given; what was the nature of the pledge; if not, whether there is any reason why arrangements should not now be made, by lease or otherwise, for the reservation of these subscription gardens for the keyholders as heretofore;
(2) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is proposed, after 5th July, 1922, to incorporate in the park the subscription garden enclosure extending from York Terrace to Hanover Terrace, round the Outer Circle of Regent's Park; whether a revenue is derived from the subscribers to these gardens sufficient to cover the cost of their upkeep; and, if so, whether he will withhold his consent from any proposal which involves relinquishing such revenue?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware that any specific pledge was ever asked for by
Parliament or given in respect of these strips of garden, though the policy was clearly indicated on 20th May, 1914, and, indeed, represents the general and consistent attitude of the Office of Works. Wherever circumstances permit, such enclosures are thrown open to public use and enjoyment. In this case Treasury assent has been given to a well recognised improvement, but I may add that the revenue from the key licences, though meeting the cost of upkeep, was so small as to make it quite impossible to do justice to this stretch of park land. The First Commissioner regrets any inconvenience which may be caused to keyholders, though he has explained that in his judgment the amenities of houses overlooking these strips of land will not be impaired.

UNEMPLOYMENT (SPECIAL GRANTS).

Mr. MALONE: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour what funds now remain at the disposal of Lord St. Davids' Committee for giving grants to local authorities in connection with unemployment schemes?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): Under the arrangements made with Lord St. Davids' Committee, it will be possible for them to sanction grants in respect of further schemes to the capital value of approximately £1,000,000.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (NECESSITOUS AREAS).

Mr. MALONE: 75.
asked whether there is any fund from which assistance can be given to specially necessitous areas, such as the area covered by the West Ham Board of Guardians, which are outside the Metropolitan area and therefore can derive no benefit from the Metropolitan Common Fund, and are now in very urgent need of financial assistance?

Sir A. MOND: The Government are assisting necessitous areas by enabling them to raise loans to meet their abnormal expenditure on relief, and an application by the guardians of the West Ham Union for sanction to borrow a sum of £300,000 for this purpose is now before me and will be dealt with within the next few days.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, assuming that the loan to the West Ham Board of Guardians is £300,000, the poor rate will be 4s. 6d. in the £?

Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of that.

Mr. MALONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that these boards of guardians were never intended to deal with this phenomenal industrial situation, and will he take special steps to deal with particularly poor districts, such as the West Ham area?

Sir A. MOND: I have in my reply indicated the steps which the Government are taking.

Mr. THORNE: Is there any possibility of extending the loan to a period of more than five years, on account of the heavy obligations of the West Ham Council?

Sir A. MOND: I will consider that when the terms of the loan come before me.

ALLOTMENTS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 74.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Scottish allotment holders fear that legislation following the Report of the recent Departmental Committee will, in the case of Scotland, be included in an English measure; that they would regard such a method as wholly unsuitable for Scotland; and whether he can now state definitely that there will be separate legislation for Scotland?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I can assure my hon. Friend that I appreciate the weight of the arguments in favour of a separate Bill for Scotland. I am not, however, prepared to admit that a measure applicable to the two countries would be wholly unsuitable for Scotland. The question is one of Parliamentary time. I hope to be in a position to announce a decision this week.

ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE.

Mr. DOYLE: 71.
asked the Minister of Labour if all possible steps have been taken by his Department to bring to an end the lock-out in the engineering trade; and if some efforts towards industrial
peace will still be made, in view of the consequences to employers, employed, and the community of such conflict?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend will continue to take all possible steps which may assist in reaching a settlement of this dispute.

TELEPHONES, FRANCE.

Sir J. D. REES: 67.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has information to the effect that a Bill has been introduced into the French Chamber for the purpose of transferring the national telephone back to a private company?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): So far as I am aware, the answer to the question is in the negative. A Bill was introduced by the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Finance on 12th January this year to abolish the flat rates, and to substitute a general message rate on the grounds that a more equitable basis of charge, by which subscribers pay according to the use made of the service, will tend to develop the system, enable an improvement in the service to be effected, and, at the same time, restore the balance of expenditure and receipts.

NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the transfer of the business of the Army bacon supply from the Royal Army Service Corps to the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, he will say if the latter concern is managed for profit, if any accounts of the same are published, and to what use such profits are put; and whether the institutes are in need of assistance of the nature referred to?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): The Navy, Army and Air Force Institute is registered under the Companies Act as trading not for profit, and any net profits which it may make will be allocated in due proportion for the benefit of members
of the Navy, Army, and Air Force and of their dependants. Accounts will be published. With regard to the last part of the question, the supply of commuted articles of the ration, of which bacon is now one, has been assigned to the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, for the purpose of convenience of distribution.

Sir W. DAVISON: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member really takes up more than his fair share of time.

CALEDONIAN HOTEL, CARLISLE.

Major-General Sir C E C I L LOWTHER: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the State authorities in Carlisle contemplate altering the Caledonian Hotel, Butchers-gate; whether the cost to the taxpayer will be about £6,000; and whether this scheme has been approved by his Department?

Mr. SHORTT: It is contemplated altering the Caledonian Hotel, and the scheme has my approval. The cost will be about £6,000, but it will mean no loss to the taxpayer.

Sir J. D. REES: Was it not understood when the last Licensing Act was passed that the Government was going out of the beer and spirit business? Have they now changed their minds, and are they going to stick to it?

Mr. SHORTT: I was not aware that that was so.

NATURALISATION (MR. LOUIS COOPER).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 85.
asked the Home Secretary if consideration has been given to an application for naturalisation submitted by Mr. Louie Cooper, a London merchant engaged in developing export trade with the free city of Danzig and the country which it supplies; and if, subject to satisfactory evidence of their commercial position and bona fides, all possible facilities and credentials may be given to Mr. Cooper and other persons ready to travel on the Continent at their own expense and promote the export of British manufactures?

Mr. SHORTT: An application for naturalisation has been received from Mr.
Cooper, and will be considered in its turn. I am not quite sure what the latter part of the question means, but no doubt any facilities to which Mr. Cooper is entitled he will receive.

AIR STATION (HALTON).

Mr. RENDALL: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether all the land and premises owned by the Government at Halton, Dorset, are now occupied by the Air Ministry; if not, in whose hands the remainder is; for what purposes the Air Ministry is using the Halton property; and how many airmen, mechanics and cadets he intends shall be stationed at Halton when the buildings now in progress are completed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The answer to the first and second questions is, about 60 per cent. of the original land and premises, the remainder being either already sold or about to be sold by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission; to the third, as a training station for mechanics and also as a hospital serving a group of stations; to the fourth, about 3,000.

NIGHT CLUBS.

Sir C. HIGHAM: 86.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the existence in London of disreputable night clubs, where a secret traffic exists in drugs and where alcoholic liquors are obtainable after closing hours; and whether, in view of the evil effects on the young men and women who frequent them, steps will be taken to ensure their suppression?

Mr. SHORTT: Whenever information is obtainable as to illegal practices in clubs, whether in contravention of the law as to sale of intoxicating liquor or of the Regulations as to dangerous drugs or otherwise, the police are alert to take action. Convictions have been obtained in two recent cases.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain hon. Members of this House are very much interested in certain night clubs?

Mr. SHORTT: No, I am not aware of that.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir DOUGLAS GEORGE COCHRANE NEWTON, K.B.E., for Borough of Cambridge.

ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. CLYNES: The House has had on many occasions to deplore recurring industrial disputes. In considering the quarrel which is to be discussed to-day I would ask the House to remember that in very few, if any, of these cases have the workmen been the attacking party. In all the instances of the great disputes of recent years the men have been acting on the defensive, and at most have been seeking to defend some of the conditions which formerly had been conceded to them. The immediate reason for this discussion to-day, so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, is to draw attention to the inaction of the Government and, through the Debate, to afford the House of Commons an opportunity to take some step which will hasten the end of this lamentable lockout. Our purpose is to make use, as we think an opportune use, of the new industrial law and to prove that the unions in this quarrel have done everything to maintain peace and to prevent injury to a great industry. No ordinary wage issue need form any part of this discussion, but I draw attention to the fact that the men in the engineering trades have recently by ballot voted on the two occasions when they were asked to accept reductions and agreed to the reductions, and a stoppage was avoided. They suffered a reduction of the 12½ per cent. which was conceded to them during the War, and they suffered a further total reduction of 6s. per week. The question of overtime is the underlying and substantial cause of the present quarrel, and I suggest that it is extraordinary that that question should be the cause of an extensive lock-out at a time when the engineering trade, like so many others, is suffering from severe depression, when indeed some 80,000 engineers were totally unemployed before the lock-out began. A national lock-out at such a moment and upon such ah issue is, to my mind, an astounding act of aggression on the part of the employers.
Let me refer to the first stage of this trouble. In September, 1920, the employers' federation and the trade union concerned came to an agreement on the questions both of overtime and
shift work. That agreement provided for a maximum amount of overtime in any four weeks, but with no restriction whatever when overtime was required for breakdowns, replacements, repairs, trial trips, special alterations, or for the completion of any work required for delivery at a particular date. These provisions show that the men have exhibited every consideration for the facts of a mutual interest and for the discharge of a duty upon their part as employés. That agreement expressly deprecated overtime as a method of production on ordinary work, but it provided for overtime on such work when overtime was necessary. In December, 1920, a few months after the agreement was entered into, the trade union announced, in response to applications from its members, that the implication in the agreement was that overtime on ordinary production shall be worked when considered necessary by both parties. I put this question in view of the action of the employers—must two parties enter into an agreement and then only one party have the right to interpret the meaning of that agreement? I suggest that both the parties who arranged the contract are entitled to a voice as to what it means, and that if any serious difference arises on the interpretation or meaning of the language which both jointly agreed to use, neither side singly has the right to determine the exact meaning of the terms agreed upon.
Let me try to put in the language of the union concerned what its attitude is declared to be now. The union says that it docs not question the right of the employers to exercise managerial functions, nor to interfere with their claims in respect to overtime. The union recognises the right of the employers, but says and asserts that the workers have rights as well as the employers. The union is only too anxious that the rights of each should be related and composed, so that industry maybe carried on harmoniously. The employers refuse to the workers any share in the fixing of when and how overtime on ordinary production shall be worked, and they are prepared to allow the union to raise overtime questions only when overtime has been commenced. The union wants consultation on overtime before the grievance arises. The employers insist upon discussion taking place only after the grievance has begun. It is the employer's business to conduct
his works within agreed terms and arrangement. That is not merely true of this industry, but it is true of every other industry and enterprise in the country. Just as it is the employer's right to look after his interest and his business, it is the union's business to watch the interests of its members.
The secretary of the employers' organisation, Mr. Brown, publicly stated within the last few days what he conceives the employers' claim to be. The phrases, to my mind, have a sort of Prussian flavour, and exhibit a frame of mind which works only in one direction, the direction of the master. This is the employers' declaration:
In any organisation for the direction of human effort it is necessary that there shall be one directional authority, and all experience has shown that dual control, such as is now sought, is incompatible with the proper working and efficiency of an industrial establishment.
If that doctrine were to be commonly practised, away would go all the modern tendencies of settling differences by the process of give and take, by mutual arrangement, by agreement, by conference, by decisions arrived at after conference between the two sides. As against this view, which is utterly autocratic and inapplicable, to the spirit of modern British industry, we assert that there is a mutual interest which ought to be mutually pursued by the two parties, and that pursuance involves joint action and a large degree of joint control, mutually approved by the two parties. The whole tendency within the industry in recent years has been in that direction of bringing together the interest of the workmen in the works as well as his employer. Those who have capital in an industry have no right merely upon that account to assert the superior claim, solely to decide the whole affairs which determine the capital of the, workman. The workman's capital is his labour, of mind, brain and body, and if we are to think of industry in the terms of human dealing and human relationship, we cannot entertain this doctrine of the sole right of capital to determine the conduct of affairs within the workshops in these days.
It is true that this doctrine has only been quite recently asserted, for I have here a document signed jointly by the representatives of the Engineering Union
and the representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation as recently as 9th December, 1920. This document relates to shift work. In principle there can be no real distinction as between shift work and overtime work, in so far as either may involve the application of authority claimed by one side or the other. This document relating to shift work, and signed by the two parties, including the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith), embraces these two statements:
The introduction of the system shall be for the purpose of absorbing unemployed. The proposal to introduce such a system shall be subject to consultation with the workers' committee in each case.
4.0 P.M.
If, in the case of overtime, the employers now have a right to demand authority solely and always to say when it shall be worked, upon what ground do they agree that in the case of shift work there must be consultation and joint and mutual decision? If it be right to enter into shift work solely with the object of absorbing the unemployed, upon what basis do they insist upon overtime without taking unemployment into consideration at all? We have even a more definite piece of evidence as to what, until recently, was the view of the employers' representatives. There was signed some time ago an industrial conference report which, among other things, dealt with this very question of overtime. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, together with many other representatives of employers, signed that document, and it was signed also by representatives of the various trade unions. On the question of overtime, this sentence is to be found in the report:
During periods of depression in an industry, overtime should only be worked in special cases. It should be determined in accordance with rules laid down …by its industrial council or by other joint representative body.
Why, then, have we such a sudden departure since that document was accepted? We are, therefore, to have overtime on ordinary work entered into only in special cases and only after rules have been jointly arranged by both parties, and only after decision by a joint representative body. I suggest that this is a most unwarrantable departure from an arrangement mutually and voluntarily entered into by the two sides within only very recent times.
The two sides not having been able, through the extraordinary action of the employers, to proceed on the terms of their quite recent arrangement, we were met with an ultimatum from the employers, definitely declaring that new conditions, that new notions of interpretation, and that a new aspect of authority must be set up in the workshops to begin, as it were, a new era of undisputed authority on the part of the employers. Some play is made of the fact that the executive, of the men's union recommended these very terms to their members. They did. Having failed to settle any other way, and being met with this new demand, the men's leaders, in view of the fact that they had been paying millions of their money to support their members in a state of unemployment, in face of the fact that there were so many of their members out of work, and being anxious to avoid a stoppage or lockout, which in their judgment would bring not only injury but probably disaster to a great trade, did go to the extreme course of recommending their members to accept even the ultimatum of the employers. The result is known to Members of the House. Some 50,000 members voted against the executive's recommendation, and about 35,000 for it. Some reference is made to the fact that that was a small vote. It was, but it was a larger vote than the vote given on a previous occasion when the men accepted terms which had been arranged between the employers and their leaders. If a small vote be good enough to ratify an arrangement with which the employers agree, a larger vote should be accepted by them as good enough when it is a rejection of terms which they have tried to impose.
I take the liberty, upon this part of my subject, of addressing a comment to all employers of labour who have a subject of this kind with which to deal. I fear that recently the tendency of discussions between representative leaders of workmen and employers' representatives has been for the employers' representatives artificially to force an appearance of assent from the leaders of workmen even to the extent of extorting from them a promise to recommend conditions for their members which in their hearts they cannot approve, and which on their merits they cannot support. That is a bad policy for anything like healthy, voluntary bargain-
ing as between the two sides. It is a policy which naturally makes workmen suspicious of anything which their leaders recommend. It is a policy through which the men can see. They see that the recommendation is made, not because of the worth or merits of what is recommended, but because the employers think that they have got their leaders in a corner and are able to compel them momentarily to range themselves on the employers' side and to induce large bodies of men to accept certain terms. That is a ruinous procedure, and will involve employers in many quarrels. A halt should be called to this new departure in voluntary discussions between the two sides.
I hope that my hon. Friends who have listened so far have observed that the quarrel throughout up to a late stage was on the question of overtime and the interpretation of an agreement relating to when overtime was necessary and when it was not. That matter of overtime has been so completely changed as to have become another question, the question of management and the right of employers to do what they like with their own, as so many of them say. If, as I hear an hon. Member assert, Scripture is to be quoted for that contention, then Scripture covers workmen as well as masters, and, so far as workmen have rights, they are their own rights, and they can exercise them even in keeping with Scripture. Management involves many things beyond the mere term which employers use to express it. It involves more than overtime in this instance. It can involve wage rates, it can involve status and the classification of workmen, it can raise the whole subject of workshop conditions, of pay, and of labour. The whole of the conditions of workshop life prior to the creation of trade unions showed the necessity for rules and regulations, for agreements, and for lines of damarcation that would classify and arrange into something like a system the various grades and the particular places of workmen in relation to their daily tasks. Now we are called upon by the employers to approve a new departure, which means that at any time when they like they can order one group of men off certain machines, and put other men on those machines at less rates of wages. That is not a workshop practice to which we are going back, and that will be said not merely for engineering, but for every other industry where these lines of
demarcation and this definite acceptance of place and right have long been recognised by both employers and employed.
This question of management was only raised in an acute form after the workmen's ballot refusing to accept the terms on the question of overtime. It was only then raised in an acute form, but it was pressed with such unseemly haste as to be the first cause, ultimately, of the stoppage. The men's efforts for peace were maintained. The Amalgamated Engineering Union at that stage even made new proposals to the employers. These proposals would give to the management the fullest managerial rights to which they are entitled under existing agreements. The union put forward proposals which, in their judgment, would dispose of the question of overtime, but the employers positively refused even to discuss any further questions or to give any consideration to them, although overtime had been the real cause of the trouble. Having changed their ground from overtime to management, they would listen to no new proposals of a conciliatory character from the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and they proceeded forthwith to embroil 40 odd other organisations in the quarrel as well as the single union with which, up to that time, they had been in dispute. Questions of management cannot be considered apart from the rights of the workmen. The two are inseparable, and the man who says that he is going to be master in his own house must remember that in the workshop the workman has rights which employers must recognise, that those rights relate both to labour and to pay, and that any difference of interpretation on any agreement reached between the two parties ought not to be determined solely by one of the two parties, but should be jointly arranged by both.
There are some 47 other unions engaged in all manner of pursuits relating almost to every section of the engineering trade. They had never discussed this question of overtime with the employers. They had never been asked to do so. No point of difference had ever arisen between them and their employers. They had never been invited to a conference. The occasion to confer had never arisen. Nevertheless, the employers suddenly threw these new terms at these other organisations, and
fixed a date within which they must have a decision. I wonder what would have been the tone of this House had any corresponding action been taken by those 40 odd unions, insisting on a change deemed to be extreme and serious by the employers. The unions, in their helpless position, pleaded for a postponement. They asked for time in which they would have ample opportunity to put before the members these new proposals. They repeated these appeals for postponement, but due opportunity for consultation was denied them. Hastily they had to improvise plans for a ballot, and that ballot is in course of completion. I gather that the Minister for Labour considers that the fact that this ballot is now proceeding is a substantial cause for the. Government not having intervened in the particular form which I will, a little later on, explain to the House. On the contrary, I think that the Government might have been of very great assistance in preventing the probable spread of this difference, and in composing the difference itself if it had not lost time; and if it had set aside the question of this compulsory ballot being imposed upon this large number of other organisations. Employers in the engineering trade will never be able to insist on this new doctrine, and I ask the House to exhibit no sympathy for it for these reasons.
Industry without restraint is industry tending to enslavement. Industry must be, and has been for long, restrained by at least four lines of action. First by legislation, of which this House has frequently approved. Secondly, by trade union action, which is commonly accepted even by employers themselves, and certainly is not resented by the employing class as a whole. Third, by joint organisation, and by such arrangements mutually entered into as are, for instance, very well symbolised in what we know as the Whitley Councils, joint organisations covering between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 workers, and, fourth, public opinion has often exerted itself in a manner to restrain industry from tendencies which otherwise would have been shown. If we talk about absolute freedom in trade in respect to internal workshop conditions we are simply talking about absolute anarchy. We must have regulations and joint arrangements in the mutual interests, and for the general prosperity of the industry itself.
I do not deny that the employers might, if they are callous enough to pursue their scheme so far, in the end win a victory. They might succeed in their lock-out, yet they would be simply setting aside the lessons of 20 years ago. Twenty years ago there was the greatest engineering lockout which up to that time British industry had known, and the men after 17 or 18 weeks' idleness all over the country had to give way. They were helped by their fellows, for those in work were at that time better able to support the locked out engineers than perhaps are the mass of the workers to-day. The lessons to be learned from what happened then are surely these, that a success obtained by that show of force, because one side by hunger may have to surrender, must be a short-lived success. For very soon that organisation, beaten to its knees 20 years ago, got again on its feet, and year by year it grew in numbers and money in such a degree and manner as to be a more powerful organisation at the end of five years after its defeat than it was before it was attacked.
I would suggest that this is not the way in which to conduct British trade, and that disputes which are avoidable, as clearly this could have been avoided, should not have been forced on an issue which could well wait, if it has to be tested at all, until both sides were a little more fit for determining the issue which has been raised. For in this matter more than the men have to suffer. The public, to a great extent, become the victims as much as the men who have to suffer the privations of a lock-out. The general workers and labourers, these third parties who in no sense had anything to do with the case, must suffer to a degree of privation if the employers bitterly pursue the course on which they have entered. The general workman and labourer very often has a cause for quarrel with the skilled engineer. This is not the time to enter into it and attempt to settle it. This is the time when I think I can say, as I do on behalf of all that class, that they will not allow themselves to be made the instrument of the employing class in this matter. They will not be used as the tool of the Engineering Employers' Federation by seeking to settle any grounds of difference they may have at a time when the skilled workmen are being closely attacked by the Engineering Employers' Federation. I hope that I
have said sufficient to show that the ground has been altered at a most inopportune moment from a difference on the subject of overtime to these larger issues as to the rights of capital and the rights of the employers on matters of management.
I want to deal with the position which the Government has been maintaining in relation to this dispute. The Minister of Labour has been exceptionally active, impartial and, I think, on the whole, helpful in all these matters in bringing together the two sides in this difference. Ceaselessly he has laboured to got conference, and, if possible, settlement. But when ordinary methods fail, in spite of perseverence and good intention, and when extraordinary measures are at his disposal, I think that a wise Minister and a courageous Minister would have gone the whole length of his opportunities. He still has an instrument which has not been used. This is an instrument forged by this Government quite recently, and for, as I believe, such a very definite and special instance as is now before us. What is the Industrial Courts Act for? It is not to deal with trifles, with petty disputes or minor cases.
I myself some time last Session appealed to my right hon. Friend to apply this Industrial Courts Act in a case where only a few men were concerned, though I think they had great rights, rights raising matters of individual liberty. Yet as only a few of these men were involved, and public inconvenience was not called into question, my right hon. Friend argued that on that account it was not a case in which there would be any justification for applying the powers of that Act. But surely this great engineering lock-out is a great outstanding national instance of a quarrel exactly of the kind contemplated by the Government when this Act was made law. It becomes all the more a necessary instrument in this case because the issue is not a wage one in the ordinary sense of the term. It is one involving precisely those points of difference requiring inquiry and calling for something like a judicial pronouncement so as to invoke the moral forces of public opinion in a manner to induce the parties to come to terms. This law could be applied without my right hon. Friend in any sense taking sides. We are not asking the
Government to take sides—we are appealing for impartiality. We are asking it not to go into the merits but to set up this court to go into the merits, and call upon the two parties to this difference to adduce the evidence which they have with a view to seeing who is right and who is wrong. I do not see present the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but when he was Minister of Labour, and had to submit on 6th November, 1919, this particular Act, as a Bill, to this House, he commended the part of it which I now have in mind, Part II, to the House in these terms:
There is only now one part of the Bill to which I need refer. That is the part dealing with the establishment of a Court of Inquiry. Everybody has felt the need in cases, where grave disputes have arisen, of some method by which an inquiry could be taken up which should enlighten the whole of the public upon the issues at stake. This Bill proposes that the Minister of Labour shall be entitled to set up a Court which shall have the power of compelling people to attend and give an account of their contentions in the dispute and of compelling people to produce documents which the Court thinks are necessary for the elucidation of the question at issue.
This Industrial Courts Act, Part II of which provides for this machinery of inquiry, has never yet been applied in any outstanding instance of a national stoppage. It has been applied properly in one or two minor cases. I do not make the allegation myself, but I can tell my right hon. Friend that, outside these walls, there is a feeling that if the position had been reversed, if a condition of trade prosperity and boom had permitted the workers to make demands, and suddenly press new claims, all the resources of the law would have been used to prevent a stoppage, and compel the two parties to take part in an inquiry. Precious time has already been lost by the Government owing to the fact that it has not already used the machinery at its disposal, and, unwisely, the Government has delayed this question which, on its own initiative, and without pressure from either side, it could have ordered, and thereby have prevented the stoppage. I am confident that, much as the Employers' Federation may prize their rights, they would not have enforced the stoppage had the Government instituted an inquiry, as it could have done before the lock-out
started. The stoppage itself has only intensified the reason for instituting an inquiry now, and the ballot of these other workmen, now proceeding, is no adequate reason for standing aside any longer. The engineering stoppage is perilous enough and extensive enough to justify immediate investigation. Of itself it is large enough to justify our claim. Should the dispute be extended to other trades the inquiry could extend itself to the larger area of trouble.
I am afraid that so far as there are extremists and die-hards on the two sides to this quarrel, they will have found great joy from the policy that the Government has pursued. The Government has missed a great chance of taking a hopeful middle course and of producing agreement by moral influences and by inquiry. I observe that this morning a statement has been issued by the employers' federation purporting to give their case. A copy of it has reached me. I could divide this document into parts. First there is that part which theorises and philosophises upon the rights of capital and upon the right of undisputed authority of employers in the workshop. As to that I have already said enough. Tendencies, facts, and realities are against philosophy of that kind, and I say no more. The second part is a recital of a number of instances where trouble has been occasioned in the engineering trades by, it is alleged, the interference either of workmen or of their representatives, shop stewards, officials, and so on. I shall not deny any of these statements, though after all they are not large in number, and they are not authenticated by any name, date or place. I do not for that reason object. I am willing to admit that they may be true. They are just the exceptions that prove the rule. Your rule is proved only by odd cases breaking out here and there. Is it any wonder that in so varied and extensive an industry as this there are almost daily points of difference arising between employer and employed?
I wish to draw attention to what I call the third part of this document. The last page, to my astonishment, is an effort to justify the position of the employers and to sustain their arguments by quoting as witness, first of all, Lenin, and the Bolshevists are cited to support the position taken up by the Engineering
Employers' Federation. The second witness cited is a weekly Socialist newspaper, "Justice." So that now we find the employers' federation ranging themselves or standing in between these two extremes, "Justice," the Socialist newspaper, and the Russian Bolshevists. I congratulate the Engineering Employers' Federation upon having finally decided to put themselves in that galaxy. A more serious side to this is, as to whether this House, having without opposition or, at any rate, without an adverse vote or a vote of any kind so far as the principle of the Act was concerned, passed that law as one of the latest and best developments in modern industrial legislation—whether this House, having done that, should now stultify itself by refusing to make use of this new instrument on the first great occasion which has arisen. I put the view that if the men in this instance and for some such cause had been the attacking party, we would have had unmistakable demonstrations of disapproval from many sections in this House. I therefore ask hon. Members of every party to use their influence in urging the Government usefully to intervene, as I believe it can, in composing these differences. British trade cannot stand the strain. I began by saying that in these differences of recent years, the great stoppages have been due not to the aggression of the men, but to their having to resist steps taken by the employers against them. If it were true that in this instance the men were the attacking party, my view would be that the state of industry requires enforced settlement, if the parties themselves cannot come to terms. With our condition of unemployment, with our overseas trade in fresh jeopardy, with our difficulties in relation to markets overseas, difficulties which have thrown many employers out of work as well as workmen, influences might be used on the Government in order that the Government should immediately step in to compel an inquiry in an impartial court.

Mr. GOULD: I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken for the very moderate and very fair way, from his point of view, in which he has presented his case, but at the same time I will ask him and his colleagues to give me that same degree of consideration in presenting another side
of the case which, after all is said and done, will be equally as fair from my point of view and the public point of view as that which he has presented. In the first place, I cannot quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his statement that this dispute is one which has been brought about by the employers. I would recall to the House the fact that the dispute has arisen, as he says, on questions of overtime. The same questions of overtime arose in 1898 and in 1907, and were adjusted at that time on certain conditions and terms which were practically the same, except that the reduction of hours was from 40 to 32 in the former year, and in September, 1920, the hours were reduced to 30–30 hours of overtime not to be exceeded in a period of four weeks. In the previous adjustments, and when the negotiations were being conducted in 1920, it was understood by both sides that the same conditions would prevail in the terms of settlement as had prevailed in 1898 and 1907, and an agreement was reached and signed in good faith by the employers' federation on the distinct understanding that the same terms would be carried into effect as had been carried into effect on the two previous occasions. But what happened I Almost immediately following the signing of the agreement, the executive of the Amalgamated Engineering Union sent out a manifesto to their branches saying that, although this contract had been reached—not exceeding 30 hours' overtime to be worked in four successive weeks—such overtime could not be worked without consultation with and reference to the representative of the men. That condition had not been imposed on previous occasions, but in all good faith the employers assumed that the terms of reference having settled the number of hours, they dealt also with the same conditions which had been settled previously. This new point, this new reservation, had never been discussed, and it was certainly not in the minds of either party to the agreement that such a proviso was to be made.
Continuously for months after that, discussions took place between the employers and the men, with the result that two or three months ago a decision was reached between the two bodies which made it perfectly clear that, the employers I had no desire whatever to interfere with
the functions of the trade unions, and that the trade unions had no desire whatever to interfere with the functions of the management. Secondly, it made it perfectly clear that, inasmuch as an agreement had been signed whereby all disputes could be settled under the shop stewards' agreement, any dispute which might arise could be referred to that body; and, thirdly, that while such disputes were in course of settlement the employers' rights of management should remain undisturbed. That was recommended by the executive of the Amalgamated Engineering Union for acceptance by the men. It was put to the ballot. With regard to the ballot and the manner of it, I shall have a word or two to say later. The proposal was turned down. I submit that here was a case where an unexampled and totally unexpected precedent was set up after an agreement had been reached by the leaders of the men's union, something which had never happened before, something we had no right to expect, and something which was totally foreign to all the history and traditions of previous settlements. Surely it cannot be said that the employers, taking into consideration all the facts and all that might possibly result from the enforcing of that regulation by the trade unions, are forcing the issue and trying to bring about a dispute, when they simply want to carry on their businesses as before.
To my mind it is perfectly clear, and to the general public I think it is also clear, that the conditions which the trade unions have endeavoured to set Up on this occasion were conditions which distinctly interfered with management. The fact has been mentioned that a very small proportion of the trade union members, 85,000, voted on this dispute, and a very much smaller percentage voted for the acceptance of the original terms. The fact that that is the case does not in any way affect the argument involved, because the contented mass on a previous occasion, in September, 1920, knowing and feeling that the terms were acceptable and would be carried, made no effort whatsoever to vote. My right hon. Friend made a pathetic appeal with regard to the industry itself and the lamentable conditions with which we would be confronted. I would like to tell the House exactly what would have happened had this particular
lock-out or stoppage not taken place. The engineering and shipbuilding industries to-day are faced with a practically total sessation of work within the course of the next six or nine months in any event. That is a statement which is absolutely beyond dispute. At the present moment our engineering shops and shipyards are more than half idle and there is not the slightest prospect—try as we may and tender as we do, for work without profit—of getting any orders. Not only the engineering industry but the shipbuilding industry is paralysed, and yet we have a dispute of this kind coming up to-day, on conditions and terms which totally ignore the economic outlook and totally disregard the position in which the employer is placed and, as a matter of fact, the position in which the State will ultimately be placed, as regards its responsibility for maintaining these men and their dependants.
I feel that the attitude of the Amalgamated Engineeing Union on this particular ballot is not consistent in any way with the desires of the men, and from the evidence which is in my possession from various sources, and from the industries with which I am connected, I am convinced that the men themselves are not in the least happy as regards the position into which they have been forced. As I have said before, we are faced with a stoppage of orders in the engineering and shipbuilding worlds. I have been making some comparisons in a yard in which I am interested, and it may stagger the House somewhat to know that on engineering costs alone for a set of engines for a standard type steamer, built in 1914, the total cost of construction was £11,447 and the cost to-day is £29,260. I find that proportionate charges for material have gone up 167 per cent., wages have gone up 118 per cent., and general charges 200 per cent. In this particular establishment, as I would like to point out to my right hon. Friend, we have seen our rates on account of unemployment and other charges jump up from £2,100 in 1914 to £12,600 in 1922, a jump of about six times, which is reflected in a direct charge upon the industry. Taking it all through the industry, skilled labour advances, having regard to the decrease of hours from 53 to 47, show 118 per cent. increase over 1914. I take the same steamer on the hull charges, and I find she cost us exactly £70,000 as against
£34,655 in 1914. There, again, increases of labour, material and charges are more or less in the same relation as they are in regard to the engines. May I point out that the increased cost of building that vessel to-day, over 1914, is £55,150, without allowing anything for profit whatever. It may also interest the House to know that last week I sold a steamer built in Germany and due to be finished next month, for just exactly £148 less than the difference between the pre-War cost and the present day cost of building a steamer in this country. That is what we are up against and I am prepared to make a gamble that the Germans made 100 per cent. profit, at the present rate of exchange, on the construction of that boat. What is the use of talking platitudes and nonsense when we are faced with the conditions like that? We are sitting here to-day talking about overtime and about the conditions of the industry, but very few Members of the House, and very few of the general public whose opinions are moulded by the public Press, realise exactly the difficulties which confront those who are engaged in this industry, and have all at stake in this industry, in trying to resuscitate business, which is being killed not so much by the wages which are being paid, as by the intolerable conditions imposed upon us in our daily work. Lines of demarcation, disputes as to how many men shall be put upon a machine, overtime conditions and all these things are being brought up to us from day to day, and we are being checked and retarded while we on our side are endeavouring all we possibly can to get output and avoid all disputes which follow any attempt to reduce wages. While we are doing all we can to decrease the cost of production, while we are doing all we can to get efficiency by spending money on new plant and new machinery, we are being met by every degree and particle of opposition which it is possible to put up against us.
I am connected with one of the largest engineering concerns in the North of England. We have never had any trouble, and we have got on very well with our men, and I have here a letter from the managing-director of that concern which, to some extent, will show the spirit existing in that particular yard, and also shows the conditions with which we are confronted, and which we cannot overcome. His letter contains the following:
Our men have worked quite satisfactorily and, now that we have got rid of the importations during the War period our costs are showing a regular progressive improvement. Our relations with the workmen were never more satisfactory than at present, and it is with great regret we have had to stop these men.
A letter was sent to him asking him to give particulars as to the refusal to work on overtime, querying output conditions, and raising the question of managerial functions. His reply may be rather interesting to the House:
In cases where overtime has been desirable to finish repairs and replacements, where necessary for urgent requirements, this has on several occasions been refused by the Amalgamated Engineering Union members acting upon instructions from their district committee"—
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) might bear that in mind. It is a distinct contradiction of the statement which he made this afternoon from that Box, that there were no refusals under these conditions. The writer goes on to say—
—"that is unless special permission was obtained from the delegates, which so far we have not asked for.
I would commend this to the House:
We have not, as a management, taken any steps to give effect to the demand of the committees under the shop steward system. For some years we have recognised the committee appointed by workmen in all departments whose functions are advisory. Although the Amalgamated Engineering Union representatives have tried to merge them in the shop steward committee, the other trade representatives have been against the Amalgamated Engineering Union in this rspect, preferring the present organisation, which is still in being.
A great deal has been said about the spirit which prevails between employers and workmen. Does the Labour party for one moment imagine that we are going to cut our own throats in order to get a small, mean, temporary advantage over the workmen? If they do, they must think that we are entirely and totally devoid of common sense. If the Labour party also think that they are the only people who have got at heart any consideration for the well-being of the working classes then they misjudge the rest of humanity. We see to-day as clearly as we possibly can see anything, that for four years we employers have been living in a fool's paradise. We have seen these huge profits coming in to us, and we have seen the State taking most of them; we have seen
occasional cases during the past three or four years where, in order to cheapen the cost of production and speed up output, we have spent considerable money in new plant and new buildings for development purposes, and what has happened? When we have done that, when we have spent considerable money on improvements and have attempted to work those machines and operate that plant in the most economical manner, we have been confronted with a deliberate refusal on the part of the men in the union to undertake to do the work on terms and arrangements which we can operate at a profit. The simple reason is that behind all and underlying all is the fear that if machinery becomes too good and too effective, a great number of men are going to be thrown out of employment. A more ridiculous argument never existed. If the Labour party took the trouble to study the industrial development of this country, they would find that for 60 years the ignorant have been fighting on that same theory. For 60 years we have had to fight against it, and in that 60 years we have seen the development of British industry to an extent which cannot possibly be denied or disputed. If we are going to retain our industrial position, our export trade and our command of the machinery market of the world, we shall have to do it along, sane, conservative lines.
There is a limit which is recognised by the so-called hard-hearted employer as to reduction of wages. We know there is a level below which we cannot and should not ask a man to work, but we do know this, that when we have, with a sense of justice and right, fixed wages, there remain only open to us, in order to regain our trade, avenues of economy in production. When we exploit those, when we spend capital and introduce capital into our business to develop them, is it fair or right that we should be placed in a position where we are stopped from putting those economies into operation and from exercising the managerial functions which we are to-day claiming? I say it is intolerable and unfair, and while it may be protecting the skilled unions, it is distinctly unfair and a grave injustice to the unskilled unions, with whom they are affiliated and who are very largely dependent upon them for their livelihood.
The engineering unions will probably deny the ability of other people to come into their field of endeavour and do good work. The people who work at lathes and grinders, the people who do more or less mechanical work, although they belong to a skilled trade union, would do very well to remember the efforts of the women and the unskilled amateurs who came in during the period of necessity in 1914–18 and made shells, and in very many cases turned out a far greater output than the so-called experts.
We are in a position in the industry to-day where we have to get away from all this senseless talk about investigations. What is investigation going to bring about? Is it going in any way to re-establish confidence or create a market for our products? I cannot see it. I cannot see that anything can be done by any investigation or any committee, which cannot be done by common-sense people, people who have not blinkers on, sitting down together and talking sensibly and looking at the position as it really exists. All the committees in the world are not going to bring back our trade and our prosperity, and when my right hon. Friend talks about the conditions existing in the industry and would lead us to believe that the men are being badly treated, he does not tell us that the wages which are being paid to-day are very much higher than the general public realise. I may quote a further letter in this respect:
I enclose herewith sheet showing the present day average earnings of pieceworkers based on returns taken out in October, 1921, and re-adjusted with all allowances for the present day.
5.0 P.M.
I would point out that they do not represent the best average earnings, because we have had no large volume of work proceeding; they are actual wages paid in an industry which is only working part time. For platers the weekly average at the present day is £7 9s. 6d. per week. That is the average for one yard, and it is a basic rate for the whole country, except the Bristol Channel. For rivetters, £5 18s. 6d. per week; painters, £6 18s. per week; smiths, £6 7s. 6d. per week; drillers, £5 3s. 6d. per week. Those men on piece work are receiving a fairly substantial rate of wage. On time work, which is strongly advocated by so many trade unions, I find that shipwrights get
£3 14s. 6d. per week; joiners, £3 17s. per week; fitters, £3 12s. 6d. per week; painters, £3 8s.; and painters' helpers and piece workers, £3 5s. 6d. per week.

Mr. HARTSHORN: What about miners' wages?

Mr. GOULD: They are considerably less than that, and I fail to see for a moment how the miners' leaders can, as units of the Labour party, stand up and support a union which is fighting for wages on these particular terms. If anybody has any right to a grievance it is not only the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), but the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett), who does not happen to be here, but who, in Cardiff last Sunday week, made a speech in which he attacked the craft unions and said—I believe I am quoting him correctly—"that it would be easier to get one's son made the Prince of Wales than to get him made a member of the Boilermakers' Federation."
There is one thing, I think, which has got to be dealt with frankly and with the gloves off, and that is the question of the ballot. This ballot which was taken is the most extraordinary travesty of balloting and justice and fairness which has ever been known in the history of this country. Not a single, solitary soul was informed in advance that this ballot was going to be taken. I know many hon. Members will deny that, but I have got evidence from all over the country that it is the case, and that nobody knew the ballot was going to be taken. It was advertised in some kind of journal issued by the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which probably nobody ever reads, and not even the members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union had any idea a ballot was going to be taken unless they happened to attend the lodge meeting on this particular night, and those who did attend had an opportunity of balloting. One of the rules and regulations of the union is that no ballot papers must be taken outside the lodge room. I have a letter here which I am perfectly willing to give to you, Mr. Speaker, for corroboration, but naturally I cannot give the name of the man away, in which he says, writing on the 15th March:
It is certainly true that no member could vote unless he attended his branch on the particular night the vote was taken.
The ballot rule of the Engineers says, 'No ballot paper to be taken outside the branch meeting room.' The only intimation the ordinary member had that a vote was to be taken was through the daily press. The branches meet once a fortnight, and large numbers of members, of which I am one, did not know on what night a vote was to be taken in their branch. The usual course is to send ballot papers to the branch secretary in time for him to announce at the branch meeting that a vote would take place at the following branch meeting night, but in a hurried ballot like this no time was allowed for this procedure to be adopted and thus permit the branch secretary to summon a meeting for voting. I can say definitely that that was never done.
Here you have a case of a key union, on which to a very great extent over 47 unions at least are dependent for a living, It is a key union; it has control over the destinies of some millions of men, and 50,000 men out of 430,000 men are permitted to exercise the right of vetoing, not only on behalf of the membership of their own union, but on behalf of the other trades affected—85,000 voting out of 430,000, or 21 per cent., and less than 13 per cent. able to plunge this country into the condition with which it it now confronted. I say that one of the greatest mistakes this Government has has ever made is not to see that the ballots of these trade unions, which have such a distinct effect on the life of the community, are conducted in an honest and an upright way.

Mr. ROBERTSON: Who ballots the employers?

Mr. GOULD: It has been said that a trade union should look after its own business, but we have got a right to expect the trade unions to look after the business of the country, and we have got to make our minds up that this particular system of balloting has got to be dealt with in the national interest in a very much more effective fashion than at the present time.

Mr. ROBERTSON: Who ballots the employers? Answer that.

Mr. GOULD: I will answer. The employers are willing to conform to any' regulations the Government will impose on them in balloting, but I ask the Leader of the House and the Government to make this a strong platform. The women and children, who are always paying for these disturbances, who always have to suffer on account of the actions
of these close, guilded, craft unions, would welcome and support any Government which would see that in all questions of balloting the same protection is given to the one who is voting and the same publicity is given as in the case of a guardians election or any other election of that kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a secret ballot."] You must have a secret ballot. It may be argued by the Government that it would cost a tremendous amount of money. Supposing it does cost in the course of the year a million of money, what is that compared with the enormous cost with which we are confronted week by week as a result of these ballots which are taken unfairly and ineffectively, and which are not in any way representative of the wishes of the members of the trade unions?
I say that if we are going to be subjected to these continual interruptions, when we are striving our best to get industry on its feet, because of the wild men who are assuming control of the trade unions, all we have to look forward to in the near future is a condition which is somewhat similar to that which we see existing in Russia. We are fast losing our trade, and while, as I have said before, for years we have been living in a fool's paradise, we, as employers, have realised that it is up to us to get busy. All the ideals and theories which were adopted and developed and allowed, under stress of emergency, to exercise an influence over trade union affairs during the years of war, when the Government had so much control over industry, have proved ineffective and have been proved abortive when it comes to developing industry, and all these ideas which theorists and other people have, as to dual control and joint control in industry having proved ineffective, I say, for Heaven's sake, let us get back to the same conditions in industry which built up the commercial and industrial prosperity of this country, and buckle ourselves about, and see that this matter is going to be dealt with in no half-hearted, vote-catching fashion, but in a straight, honest fashion which will give a little stiffening to those who are desirous of helping British industry, but who at present are deterred from doing so by reason of the lack of determination and strong-mindedness on the part of the Government.

Mr. R. YOUNG: The hon. Member who has just sat down addressed a very favourably received speech to the House, in which he has given us some remarkable statements, but I do not think he has thrown any clear light on the situation in which we find ourselves to-day, and may I say, with all respect, that I do not think he has at all handled the reason why this dispute has blossomed into a lock-out. If I were to summarise his speech, I would come to the conclusion that it is not the question of overtime, that it is not the question of managerial responsibility, but that it is merely the fact that six months from now there will probably be no work in the engineering shops, and that, therefore, we must try and find some cause to lock out the men at the present moment. He was very kind, in his references to {he unskilled men, in comparing them with the position of the skilled men. All I have got to say about that is, that we will leave this matter to the decision of the unskilled men themselves. I was astonished when, in the midst of a serious conflict of this kind, when we should be anxious to find out the real facts of the case, that we should have from him statements as to the wages being earned by those who work on piecework. I was always under the impression that the employers were particularly anxious to have payment by results, and that argument should not be brought in in relation to this matter.
In no society are ballot votes carried out so efficiently as in the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Intimation was given by the executive council in relation to that ballot. The secretaries of the branches, I presume, if not in every case, in nearly every case, gave their members the due notice that a special meeting would be called for the purpose of balloting, and, as a result of that due notice, there was a larger number of men voting on this occasion against the employers' terms than there were in accepting them some time before. These ballots carried on by the Engineering Union are ballots which determine the position of the men who are affected by the matter at issue, and it is only fair to say—and the employers' representative, the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould), might have told us—that every agreement arrived at between the executive council and the employers' federation is only arrived at on the understanding
that it shall go forward to the men for ratification by them in their branches, cither in the districts or else the society taken as a whole. Consequently, in so far as 23 per cent. of the members of the society voted—and I myself should rejoice if a larger number did vote—I must say that was a very large ballot, indeed, of the members of that society.
It will be my duty to recall, if I can, the attention of the House to the actual question in dispute. I want to say that I regret very much the failure of my right hon. Friend to get the people together to the extent of arriving at some arrangement. I myself was hoping that, as a result of his efforts, some compromise might have been adopted, which would have enabled my society's executive to go back to their members for another ballot; but, as I understand the position, the employers were adamant in their attitude towards what they call managerial responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting referred to the fact that this dispute was the first serious national dispute in the engineering trade for a period of 25 years. He told us that on the other occasion the men were fighting for a 48 hours' week, and he reminded the House that though they were defeated in their attempts to establish that principle, yet, after many years, they were now in the possession, not of a 48 hours' week, but of a 47 hours' week, and, in some workshops, even a lesser number of hours. I have not any fear that the principles for which the men are standing out to-day will ultimately be established by them, whether they are adopted on this occasion or not. Just when the nation was expecting, as a result of the Geddes Report, by wrong methods or by right methods, or by both, to secure a reduction in the heavy taxation which the nation has been called upon to bear; just when the nation was expecting that the enormous expenditure in relation to its commitments in many directions would be reduced, this dispute is forced upon it, and, in my estimation, forced upon it by the action of the employers—a dispute which will entail considerable expense not only to the participants in the struggle, but to the community as a whole.
I, therefore, regret not only that the Minister has failed, but that there seems to have been a lack of foresight, and a lack of courage on the part of the Government in not insisting upon carrying out
their powers, under the Industrial Courts Act, to see that this dispute should not have advanced to the position in which it is now. It is the Government's duty now to use its power under that Act to end this dispute, in the interests of the nation. There are other reasons why I regret that the Minister has not been successful. I would remind the House that there are 2,000,000 of unemployed, and that any addition to the ranks of the unemployed means greater hardship for those who are unemployed, and will mean more misery and distress for many who are non-combatants in this national dispute. For that reason, the Government should have been anxious to have an inquiry into the cause of this dispute. There is another reason. There are evidences of a slight but, I think, a real return of industrial activity. That is likely to be considerably postponed as the result of this dispute. Not only should we use national machinery to prevent disputes developing into industrial stoppages when the nation is at war, but it is essential that the Government, if it be anxious to repair the wastage and destruction of war, should use all its power to prevent industrial stoppages, to minimise their industrial effects when they do occur, and to restrict the continuation and prolongation of disputes. The present stoppage is likely to advance to that stage when a much larger number of men are involved, because the employers have, in effect, issued an ultimatum to those with whom they had no trouble in this connection.
The employers have talked about the sanctity of agreement. I would ask, how have they observed the sanctity of agreement? Doubtless they may have gone through the correct procedure in so far as the Amalgamated Engineering Union are concerned, but in relation to the other societies they cannot claim to have done so. Therefore, I wish to read to the House some extracts from the correspondence that has passed, not only between my own trade union, but the other trade unions, in relation to this matter. First of all, in relation to the engineering and shipbuilding trades, they were informed of the dispute between the engineers and the employers. The employers intimated to the other trades that they would have to toe the; line. They would have to accept the same conditions as the engineers, with whom they
were in dispute. These people rightly-sent this reply to the employers of labour:
We have no official information of any difference existing between the Federation of Engineering Employers and this Federation, and we have no wish meantime to be combatants in any difference existing between the Employers' Federations and any other organisation.
To this the employers of labour replied:
With reference to the conference held to-day, I confirm statement made to your representatives at the close of the conference that the Federations will expect to receive from you on or before the 11th March, 1922, an intimation that the Unions affiliated to your Federation are agreeable to sign, either by way of agreement or joint recommendation, a Memorandum containing the under-noted paragraph.
This paragraph is identical with the conditions sought to be imposed upon the Amalgamated Engineering Union. In reply to that, there was this further letter from the trades:
We have your letter of 2nd March, 1922, in which you ask us to sign a Memorandum which is now the subject of an acute difference between yourselves and another organisation. At such short notice, we cannot agree to terms which we have had no opportunity of considering, but we will certainly submit your request for consideration to the Executives of the various Unions. Meantime, we place on record our surprise that Unions which have no quarrel with the employers on overtime or working conditions should, without provocation, have an ultimatum in regard to these important questions thrust upon them. Your procedure is also a violation of agreements between your Federation and the various Unions.… Your request, issued at this time, appears likely to involve us directly in the matter in dispute.
They were perfectly correct in their anticipation, and these men are being involved in this dispute. That was widening the dispute with a vengeance. Not only that, but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, on the ground of this difference in relation to overtime the employers intimated that, in the event of a dispute occurring, working conditions and wages would require to be brought under review. I come now to the Amalgamated Engineering Union, a union which is, at the moment, at war with the employers of labour—locked out by them because of an interpretation of an agreement. Reference was made to the agreement of 1914. No reference has yet been made to two subsequent agreements, which
were arrived at between the engineers and the employers of labour. These agreements referred to shop stewards and works committees. The employers, evidently forgetting there were such agreements, intimated to the society that,
The question at issue is whether the management of the works is entitled only to act after obtaining consent or concurrence of the shop stewards and works committees, or whether the management is entitled to manage, leaving any question arising to be dealt with in subsequent consultations, as provided in Provisions for Avoiding Disputes, the work in question being meantime proceeded with.
I want to quote from the Shop Stewards' Agreement:
In connection with this agreement, shop stewards shall be afforded facilities to deal with questions raised in the shop, or part of a shop in which they are employed.
Surely an overtime question is a question the shop stewards were entitled to raise, and discuss. That agreement was superseded by an extended agreement, called the Shop Stewards and Works Committee Agreement, arrived at in 1919, and in which there is this provision:
Shop stewards shall be afforded facilities to deal with questions raised in a shop in which they are employed. Shop stewards elected by the works committee shall be afforded similar facilities in connection with their duties.
I have no hesitation in saying the whole of this unfortunate lock-out is not merely a question of managerial responsibility. It has been taken tip on the question of the members refusing to agree to the terms submitted to them in relation to overtime. Managerial functions are not the basis of the dispute. The lock-out has really arisen out of the conflict, as was intimated by my right hon. Friend, between the employers and the executive of the Amalgamated Engineering Union in relation to the correct interpretation of the overtime agreement, dated September, 1920. In that agreement the following words appear:
The Federations and the Trade Unions agree that systematic overtime is deprecated"—
Not only by the trade unions, but by both parties—
as a method of production, and that when overtime is necessary, the following provisions shall apply.
Round those words "is necessary" this conflict rages. So far as we are concerned, speaking for the trade unions,
that is really the crux of the whole question. Arising out of these words "is necessary," the executive council considered letters received from the members of their branches as to Section J of the agreement, which deals with the maximum amount of overtime that members are called upon to work. It says:
It should be understood that the paragraph implies that it is considered necessary by both parties. District committees should have due regard to the number of men unemployed, and whether such overtime will tend to absorb members who are unemployed.
In relation to the same matter, I wish to call the attention of the House to a letter from the Engineering Employers' Federation. This letter runs:
I am desired again to impress upon your Council the gravity of the situation which has arisen owing to your members having thought fit to call in question a basic principle on which industry is conducted. The employers feel that in view of the fundamental alteration which the ballot has brought forward, there is no alternative open to them but to face the situation, and in the national interest to place the industry on a sound economic basis, and accordingly the relations between the employers and their workpeople, the working conditions and the wages, will require to be brought under review.
What is this basic principle for which the employers of labour stand? What is this national interest that they are advocating? What is this sound economic basis which has caused this dispute? Nothing more or less, to use a scriptural phrase, than that they should be in a position to say, as of old: "To this man 'go,' and he goeth; to another man, 'come,' and he cometh: and to this man 'do this,' and he doeth it." This it is that employers of labour are attempting to force upon their workers in the workshop. That may have been good enough for the Roman centurion in the first century of the Christian era. It cannot be tolerated by British workmen living in the twentieth century. I wish again to quote, and in doing so wish to indicate to the House what the Amalgamated Engineering Union suggested to the employers of labour. They suggested that the way out of the present difficulty could only be found by both parties being prepared to endeavour to come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement. "We," said the union, "are prepared to proceed on that basis." This astonishing reply was received:
The position of the employers has been confirmed by the Executive Council and the National and District representatives of the Union, but has been rejected by the members. It is for the authorised representatives of the Union and not for the employers to devise a way of convincing the members of the Union that they have erred.
That was not a fair statement to send to the Executive of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. It was not a fair statement of the question at issue. The Executive had accepted the memorandum. They had not agreed to confirm it; they had agreed to recommend it. They accepted the force of circumstances as they found them at the time. They realised there were conditions operating which made, possibly, necessary that an agreement which they did not believe in themselves should be accepted by the members. Let me read the statement of the Executive Council to the members on the ballot paper. There can be no dubiety about these words:
Appreciating the gravity of the situation, and having regard to the fact that over 90,000 of our members are unemployed, industrial stagnation, and the severe financial strain to which the organisation has been subjected, and is likely to be for some time—for those and other reasons—equally valid?—your representatives, after continuous negotiation, accepted the following memorandum.…
In another place they say:
On further consideration by the Executive Council National and Divisional organisers, in conference, it was decided by resolution to recommend to the members to accept the aforesaid memorandum.
It is only fair to say that these things were in their minds:
That negotiations will proceed on the machine question, the claim of the Union to negotiate on behalf of the apprentices, and payment for holidays, on the understanding that the memorandum is accepted; therefore it should be clearly understood that unless this memorandum is accepted, it is probable that negotiations on these important matters will not be proceeded with.
The executive council took these things into consideration and recommended their members to accept, and the members in their wisdom did not accept. We are being told, both outside and inside the House, that at the bottom of these disputes are Bolshevist tendencies and that these are responsible for the trouble. I would say to the House: Do not let us cloud the issue; do not let us darken counsel by talking about, or thinking of, workshop Soviets run by Bolshevist
agitators. Do not let us embitter industrial controversy or throw opprobrious epithets across the Floor of this House at these workmen who fought for you in the great War, many of whom voted for you at the last general election. If I am asked: "Are these men Bolshevists?" my reply would be: "If they are, you have made them so. Every promise to them has been repudiated. Every useful measure of legislation has been repealed or devitalised. More than that, large numbers of their comrades are on the streets, without house, without work, without wages. They have been fed during the past three years since election time—and even before—on specious promises and pleasant platitudes." It is not your fault that you are not now reaping a whirlwind of anarchy, the result of misgovernment by those who have blamed us for not being fit to govern.
I would point out to this House that our reiteration of the term Bolshevist may lead them to believe that there is virtue and power in the name. There is disclosed a fear on the part of employers of labour; there is advertised a fear on the part of political representatives here of Bolshevism, and this may easily convince these men that there is much virtue in that kind of government. We are not to blame if, through your inability to fulfil your promises, discontent and unrest is prevalent in the country. I want to point out for the men that when they turned down the recommendation of the executive, 50,000 of them have demonstrated the same altruistic spirit shown by the miners in relation to their demand for a national pool. The engineers said, "Why should we work overtime when there are thousands of our fellow-men have no work to do?" That is the position. Is that an offence? Is that a serious economic blunder? Is that a moral delinquency? Is it a crime that they should take thought for 90,000 of their members unemployed at the present time? Is that sort of thing to be discouraged? Surely these men are to be commended for the attitude they are taking up in seeking, with human sympathy, practically to help their fellows by sharing the work with them? They desire to relieve distress and unemployment, to lessen the amount of unemployment by the offer to these unemployed men of a share in the work
which is to be done. Is that also to be discouraged? I have heard people outside this House discussing this thing on train, tram, and omnibus. Some of them say that the men do not want to work. I have heard hon. Members in this House declaim about the iniquity and demoralising tendencies of the unemployment dole. In a large measure I agree with them. But here are 50,000 men who say to their fellow workers, "So far as we can help, you shall not have the dole, but share the work that is to be done." That is the position as we understand it in our trade unions and amongst our workers.
I should like to call the attention of the House to a very interesting appeal by the representatives of the churches in connection with this dispute. I am very pleased, indeed, that the churches are taking an interest in these great social and moral issues. The representatives of the churches say this:
The actual point in dispute is the determination of 'necessary' overtime. The term 'necessary' is somewhat, indefinite, and clearly the decision in a matter of this kind must rest finally with the management. But the issue is not so simple as it would appear. We turn to a statement made by the president of the employers' federation, in which he says: 'We are faced with this clear issue: Are employers entitled to manage their works themselves, or must they do so by the consent of the men and their representatives, and subject to the hitter's right of veto? Nothing less than this principle is involved.' If this is an assertion of the fact that under present conditions the ultimate responsibility of management must rest with the employer, then it simply lays down a proposition that the men's leaders have accepted. If, on the other hand, it implies a refusal to the worker of any share in the control of industry from which he draws his livelihood, then the statement appears to us to run counter to a clear moral principle. It is virtually a denial of the worth of human personality; it involves a system which treats men not as men but as mere instruments of production. On such a subject we believe that it is the duty of the churches to make their voices heard.
They go on to say:
The demand that men should have an increasing share in the control of those industrial conditions on which the livelihood of the worker depends is one which ought to be met. We believe that trade unionism, which has proved its value in dealing with tasks hitherto undertaker, by it, offers an instrument through which the worker may obtain an increasing share in the control of industry.
If that were all we had to say on this matter outside it would be bad enough, but a great many of the men not only
belong to the Amalgamated Engineering Union but to the other union and they believe that this is an attack upon the whole fabric of trades unionism, and an attempt to smash trades unionism. All I can say is that if it is it will never succeed. I will go the length of saying that no matter what the result of this dispute may be to the men the experience of 1897 has demonstrated the inherent, innate, and epigenetic vitality of trades unionism. I would like to quote from a very distinguished Statesman who played a distinguished part in this House in relation to trades unionism. I mean the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. He said:
I think, even if it were possible to repress trade unions, it would not be desirable. They improve the independence and providence of the general character of the working classes.
Like my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes), I would not for a moment suggest that no difficulties of any kind have arisen in relation to the working of overtime. My right hon. Friend referred to some cases which the employers have submitted for public information. I am quite confident that while there may be here and there instances of that kind, there are, on the other hand, employers of labour who are systematically working overtime when there is no real need for it. I have heard myself of such cases from employers of labour. I am not one of those who would say when so many men are on the street that in some cases overtime is not necessary. I can quite appreciate the overhead charges of a night shift would be far too great, therefore some overtime might be required for production. I can understand the shop space being limited or an order may not be sufficiently large to carry on a double shift, and in such instances some overtime might be required. I appreciate all that, but in that connection I believe there are many employers of labour in this country who are not prepared to adopt the right method to overcome those difficulties.
Some little overtime occasionally may mean an increase in the employment of others outside, but surely those who are employed in the workshop have a right to a say in determining whether overtime is necessary. I know there is the Workshop Committee and the Shop Stewards Agreement, but that agreement does not go far enough because there is a preponderating number of employers opposed
to Whitleyism and I know that some workmen are opposed to that system. In my estimation, the real issue is that these questions should be settled by the representatives inside the workshop. The national committee should prescribe the arrangements governing industrial disputes and the district committee should see the arrangements are carried out, and the workshop committees are the only people to determine whether overtime is necessary or not. The men inside the workshop representing the trade union should be asked to confer with the employers in relation to this matter, and the district committee would not be likely to interfere unless it believed that overtime was being worked merely for monetary considerations. It is intolerable tyranny for employers to say to the men: "No matter what your own arrangements are, or whether you have worked your full number of hours, you are to place yourselves at our disposal without any consideration for your recreation or enjoyment." I have already said that what has taken place in this dispute is regarded as an attack upon trades unionism. May I read one or two extracts—[HON. MEMBEHS: "Agreed, agreed—"] I do not think hon. Members know all that is being carried on in regard to this subject. Here is one example:
Foremen are not affected by the notice, although they may be members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Opportunity should be taken to get foremen to become members of the Foremen's Mutual Benefit Society.
That means that they ought to be induced to leave the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Here is another example:
Workmen who retire from membership of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, who intimated prior to the posting of the notice that they had done so, should be considered non-union men, and be allowed to continue at work.
Workmen who have retired from membership of the Amalgamated Engineering Union after the posting of the notice should be allowed to continue at work, providing they produce on or before the date the notice takes effect a membership card of another trade union.
This has undoubtedly given rise to the belief that this is an attack on the fundamental principle of trade unionism. In concluding my remarks, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what has become of Part II of the Industrial Courts Act I Where are the roseate hopes held out by
the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced that Measure I What about the opinion which he expressed that he desired to see co-operation between employers and employed? What about the public interest of which he talked? This Act was to be in the interests of the public as against employers and as against workmen, and both sides were to provide information so that they might judge the merits of the dispute between the parties in the dispute. Surely if information is to be given it should be given to the public not when the men are on the street, not when the dispute has extended to a lock-out or a strike, but before the men or the employers have gone to that length.
Is it because the working classes have expended their finances in relieving unemployment that the employers are taking this opportunity to smash the unions? The Minister of Labour and the Government at least have been very slow to use their powers, and their past promises have all gone by the board. 1s this Act also to be a dead letter? Apparently the Government no longer believe in the interests of capital and labour. I have no hesitation in saying that it should be possible for capital and labour to have interests in common, and I go the length of saying as long as capital represents interests and dividends and makes this claim for managerial functions, as long as capital takes precedence over labour in the fruits of industrial progress—capital is the product of labour—then mutual distrust and disputes are bound to break out. We cannot hope to solve our difficulties in the direction of strikes and lock-outs. Again, let me quote the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who used these words which I trust will not be lost on the Government nor on employers of labour:
Just as long as masters refuse to admit that their men have just as great a right to combine for their own object as the masters have to combine in order to arrange the terms on which they shall sell their product; just as long as the masters refuse to allow their workpeople to have a voice in the settlement of the terms on which they give their labour, so long may they expect to have strikes, and so long will there be no hope of any happy solution of the difficulties which trouble the relations of Capital and Labour.
These were great words spoken in 1885, and they are as true in 1922. I hope the
Minister of Labour will not delay or postpone the necessary inquiry, not in the interests of employers and trades unions, but in the general interests of the community, so that they may understand the position for themselves, and I have no doubt when they do understand the position they will judge rightly in relation to this question.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I am afraid that I shall disappoint my hon. Friends opposite to-night, inasmuch as I speak in relation to the dispute from an entirely detached point of view, not being a member of the Employers' Federation. Listening to the speeches we have heard tonight, I have been rather surprised from time to time to find hon. Members referring to employers in bulk when they only mean the Employers' Federation. I wish to point out to hon. Members who are not engaged in the engineering trade that there is a very distinct line to be drawn between engineering employers and the members of the Engineering Employers' Federation. We who are not in the Federation exercise managerial functions, knowing full well that if we did enter that Federation we should no longer exercise managerial functions, because the Federation represented by the Member for Cardiff (Mr. Gould) and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith) would then proceed to manage our works for us in the way that seems to them the best.

Sir ALLAN SMITH: On a point of Order. May I say that the hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about?

Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member may be perfectly right, but unless I am very much mistaken he has nothing to do with the engineering trade of this country, except that he holds a post in the Employers' Federation.

Sir A. SMITH: May I again say that the hon. Member is misinformed?

6.0 P.M.

Mr. HOPKINSON: It seems to me an absurd thing for the members of the Federation to put forward a claim to exercise managerial functions now because they have already abdicated those functions in times past by joining the Federation. The hon. Member opposite has urged the Government to put this matter before the
Industrial Court, but the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Young) pointed out that the real point was the interpretation of what is necessary overtime and what is not necessary. I would ask him to consider what Court could decide such a point. It would be placed in a very difficult position indeed. After all, on what principle is such a Court going to decide what is necessary overtime and what is unnecessary overtime? It is almost impossible to lay down any broad ruling which could be followed in every case. Every single case has to be taken on its own merits, and I do not think that an Industrial Court, with the best will in the world, could possibly come to any useful decision on the point. We have to remember that no employer of labour will work overtime if he can possibly avoid it. In the first place, he has to pay higher wages for it, and in the second place he knows perfectly well, from experience, that when a man has been working six or eight hours in the day, the value of the overtime work is not equal to the average value of the day work. Members of trades unions may be perfectly clear about this one thing—that no employer will work overtime if he can possibly avoid it. I do not think, therefore, so far as overtime is concerned, this dispute need endure any longer. My own experience is that if I want a man to work overtime, I go to him and ask him to put in two or three hours extra, and in nine cases out of ten he consents to do so. Indeed, he is often only too willing at the present time to make a little extra, seeing that wages are going down. But it sometimes happens that the man, particularly if he be young and unmarried, says with a sheepish air that he has an engagement which will prevent him working late. Being a bachelor myself and not very old, I have enough sympathy with that man to say, "All right, we will get someone else to work overtime." That is really what happens in nine cases out of 10 in the engineering trade.
Members of the House are apt in these Debates to get the impression that there is a tremendous conflict of interests and a constant state of irritation between employers of labour and the trades unions. There is nothing further from the truth So far as my experience goes industrial unrest—and I have had experience in the engineering trade for
20 years—industrial unrest does not exist to any such extent. At any rate, I have never come across it. I have had mobs more than once coming to smash the windows of my works and to break my neck, but as to the industrial unrest of which we hear so much from employers' representatives and from trades union representatives, well, all I can say is that, although it may exist in other parts of the country, it certainly does not exist where my works are. I should like to refer to the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff, because to my mind that speech really explains more than, anything else, how this difficulty has arisen and how this very small trouble has become a very great trouble. I thought it almost pathetic to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff saying, "Here we are, robbed of our managerial functions. We say to a man come, and he goeth, and we say to another man go, and he cometh. Here are we poor employers—struggling not for our own interests, not to increase our own incomes, but merely acting for the good of the country—thwarted and defeated at every turn by these abominable, wicked trade unionists." I have had my little troubles in times past with trade unionism, but I have never suggested that the trade union has ever taken out of my hands the managerial functions of my works. It seems to me, when an engineering employer comes down to this House and makes this complaint, the reason is to be looked for rather nearer home
As I have pointed out in this House time and again, if Englishmen are going to obey, they demand something which they believe to be better than that which they have. When employers of labour put themselves on exactly the same footing as those whom they employ, when they complain that the trades unions will not keep their agreements and that wicked workmen will insist on getting as much money out of the industry as they can, it seems to me they prove one thing and one thing only, and that is that they are utterly unfitted to be employers of industry. After all, what is it that makes for peace and efficiency in industry? My experience has been this, that men will willingly and gladly obey orders if those by whom they are employed can justify their position as leaders in indus-
try. Then there is real efficiency and real peace. There is one way only, I believe, in which the employer can get that willing and glad obedience, and that is by showing in his own person that he is ready to observe a rather higher code of industrial conduct. If the men who are employed insist by collective action in taking every possible penny out of the industry, then it seems to me that the employer who wishes to be obeyed and who wishes to become an aristocrat in industry, must himself show that he is really fitted to be a leader of industry by not taking all that he might. That is really the moral of all our troubles in industry to-day. Employers of labour are hot really leaders. For an employer to say that men at a time like the present, when the worker is faced with destitution and poverty such as has not been seen for a whole generation, "It is your own fault, it is due to your own folly, laziness and wickedness," is to show that he is not a real leader- of industry. We know that in the Regular Army when men desert their officers at critical times it is the officer only who is to blame, and until a similar spirit is introduced into industry we shall never get an end of these troubles. People must cease saying that the present crisis is due to the men, and because they have not done what their employers desire they are therefore responsible for having produced the present state of affairs. The hon. Member for Cardiff, in making such a speech as he has made to-night, has proved that he at any rate, is not really fit for the position of a loader of industry.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): proceeded to put the Question, and, having collected the voices, declared that the "Ayes" had it.

HON. MEMBERS: No, no—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If anyone objected, it did not reach my ears, and the Question was therefore declared carried. But I am willing to put the blame upon my hearing, and I will put it again. The Question is, "That this House do now adjourn."

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I cannot help thinking it is very unsatisfactory that this Debate should terminate in this way. I have no special right or claim to intervene, but really if we are to have a
debate on a very important industrial problem—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am proposing to put the Question again.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Could not the Motion be withdrawn?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that is possible.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I humbly point out that you put the Question "That this House do now adjourn," and collected the voices. Nobody said anything except "Aye," and you declared that the Ayes had it. That being so, there is nothing for it but to accept the decision, and go home. It is absolutely impossible to put the Question again.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I have heard decisions given in this House when Mr. Speaker has made a similar ruling, and it has been definitely stated that a certain Motion has been carried or lost, as the case may be. Then when his attention has been drawn to the fact that someone had a contrary opinion which had not been heard, Mr. Speaker himself has taken the vote again. I understand that you are now putting the Question and that we are bound to take a vote on this subject, but I do think we ought to have first some answer from the Government to the speeches which have been delivered.

Lord R. CECIL: It surely must be the inevitable right of any deliberative Assembly not to allow itself to be made a fool of by a mistake, and if there has been some misapprehension as to the decision which has been given, which quite evidently did not really convey the sense of the Assembly, there must be an inherent right on the part of the Assembly to say it will go back and have the matter put right by taking the Vote again. I submit that on more than one occasion the Chair has ruled that a decision apparently arrived at has been arrived at under a complete misapprehension, and has put the Question again to the House.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out, on the point of Order, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Liout.-Colonel Ward) is mistaken in saying that over and over again after the Question has been put and the voices collected, another decision has been taken. I can only remember one occasion on which that was done. On that
occasion the statement was made by several Members that they had risen to continue the Debate. On this occasion no one rose to continue the Debate, and no one said "No" when the voices were collected. Therefore, much as I regret it, I must point out it is quite impossible to do anything except to go home.
With reference to the point made by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), may I say that the reason in favour of the decision remaining unchanged is very evident? If, whenever Mr. Speaker or the Chairman had collected the voices, and no one had challenged, and if someone who might have been in the next room at the time could get up and say that something else ought to be done, there would be such confusion as would render it utterly impossible to conduct the proceedings. It is very unfortunate that this should have occurred, but, it having occurred, there is nothing to do except, to follow the Rules and adjourn.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not feel it possible to rule in the sense suggested by the Noble Lord. I think it would be too serious a precedent to set. With regard to the point taken by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, it is quite true that the Question was put and I heard no one say "No," and that I was forced to decide that the "Ayes" had it. I am assured, however, that my ears were at fault, and, in these circumstances, although I do not remember any precedent, I think I am right in saying that I must take the blame upon my own hearing and put the Question again. With regard to the possibility of continuing the Debate, I presume it would be quite possible to allow the time taken up in Committee of Supply to be the same as would have been taken in any case, and to resume this Debate on a fresh Motion for Adjournment later on.

Mr. CLYNES: I submit that this discussion, on a matter which is admittedly one of national importance, having been specially arranged with the universal assent of the House, no mistake or omission on the part of anyone should preclude the House from hearing the statements of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith) and of the Minister of Labour, and, in view of the
national importance of this matter, I trust that no ruling will be given that will preclude a continuance of the Debate.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Might I suggest that, if it be possible now, by consent, for the Motion to be withdrawn, that might be done. If that be not possible, so far as I am concerned, I shall vote against the Adjournment, because I think it would be very unfortunate if the Debate closed in this way. I was waiting to give, as I must give, a reply to my right hon. Friend who put questions to me about the Industrial Court, but I was very anxious that I should not intervene in such a way as to preclude anyone else from taking part in the Debate. Therefore, I put it to you whether, by consent, the Motion can be withdrawn. If not, I should certainly advise my friends and colleagues to vote against it, in order that the Debate may not be left in this unfortunate position.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Motion has not yet been definitely put. The voices have not been collected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they have—"] So it is alleged. The voices have not been collected as to whether the House shall adjourn or not. In the circumstances, are we not perfectly entitled, until the voices have been collected afresh, to carry on the Debate, and, in these circumstances, is Mr. Deputy-Speaker correct in saying that we are not entitled to continue it?

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask what the actual position is? If the voices have been collected, and if that has not been challenged, the House stands adjourned. If the voices have been collected, and Mr. Deputy-Speaker, thinking he may not have heard somebody who called, wishes to put the Question anew, and if the Question be put anew, then, when the Question is put anew, either by you or by Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is in the power of any hon. Member to rise and continue the Debate. Either one of two things has happened. Either the House has adjourned, or it has not. If it has not, and another Question is put, and if I rise at the moment you rise and wish to continue the Debate, I can do so, if the House has not adjourned, although I maintain that it has adjourned.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think I am seized of what has occurred in my temporary absence, and I think the right hon. Baronet's last statement is quite correct. As I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker put the Question by inadvertence, not having heard a call of "No." Therefore, the position now is that if anyone rise, to continue the Debate, the Debate is thereby continued.

Major HAMILTON: My ears are very good, Mr. Speaker, and I understood Mr. Deputy-Speaker to say, "The 'Ayes' have it." That having been said, does not the House stand adjourned?

Mr. SPEAKER: It has frequently happened before that the Chairman has said, "The 'Ayes' have it," and, his attention having then been called to a claim for a Division, he has allowed the matter to go to a Division. It is quite right to say that if, in these circumstances, an hon. Member rises to continue the Debate, the Debate is continued.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not rise earlier because I did not want to shut anyone out. I rise now because I have to answer on behalf of the Government. It will, naturally, be my endeavour to say no word that may accentuate this trouble. If I should do so, the House may be quite sure that it will be inadvertent. I did my best, as my right hon. Friend has testified, to bring the parties together, and to keep them together. That is my whole policy in a nutshell. I was profoundly disappointed that my efforts were finally unsuccessful. Since 10th January our unemployment figures have steadily, if slowly, improved week by week. In the nine weeks which have elapsed since that date down to last Monday, there has been a reduction of 142,000 in the number of persons registered as wholly unemployed, and, although I could not see any immediate break on a wide front, I look forward to a slow and steady reduction in the total of 1,792,600 persons still registered as wholly unemployed last Monday. Hon. Members will judge of my dismay when I saw this trouble threatening, and threatening at a moment when I was trying to forecast the future and trying to measure the further calls I might be able to make upon an Unemployment Insurance Act which has so effectually come to our assistance during a period of unemployment unparalleled in our history for
its severity and its long continuance. It would not be right for me to enter the lists on behalf of either of the parties. I may, however, shortly state the situation as I know it. After discussions from May to November of last year, the following agreement was arrived at between the Engineering and National Employers' Federations and the representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering Union:—

1. General.

"1. The Trade Unions shall not interfere with the right of the employers to exercise managerial functions in their establishments, and the Federations shall not interfere with the proper functions of the Trade Unions.
2. In the exercise of these functions the parties shall have regard to the Provisions for Avoiding Disputes of 17th April, 1914, which are amplified by the Shop Stewards and Works Committee Agreement of 20th May, 1919, and to the terms of other National and Local Agreements between the parties.
3. Instructions of the management shall be observed pending any questions in connection therewith being discussed in accordance with the provisions referred to.

2. Overtime.
It is agreed that in terms of the Overtime and Night Shift Agreements of 29th and 30th September, 1920, the employers have the right to decide when overtime is necessary, the workpeople or their representatives being entitled to bring forward under the provisions referred to any cases of overtime they desire discussed. Meantime, the overtime required shall be proceeded with.

That is the Memorandum of 17th and 18th November last which, after long discussion, was arrived at, and was recommended for acceptance to their members by the executive of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. It was rejected, on a ballot vote, by 50,240 votes against, to 35,525 votes for, out of a total membership of 409,000. After this rejection of the Memorandum of November, 1921, by the ballot vote, the employers' federations gave notice, on 22nd February, to the Amalgamated Engineering Union of a lock-out, to begin last Saturday week, as it did. The employers' federations then met separately three other bodies—the National Federation of General Workers on 1st March, the Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades on 2nd March, and the National Union of Foundry Workers on 4th March—and requested them to accept the first three clauses of the Memorandum—the clauses relating to the exercise
of managerial functions. These bodies adjourned to consult their constituent societies. There were various discussions, in which representatives of the National Joint Council of the Labour party, the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and the Parliamentary Labour party took part, and finally, on 10th March, the representatives of the four unions now concerned met the employers and asked that, in order to facilitate the taking of a ballot amongst the three unions also affected, the notices to the Amalgamated Engineering Union should be suspended. To this the employers were unable to agree. In the result, the other three unions, that is to say, the Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades, the National Union of Foundry Workers, and the National Federation of General Workers, were informed on the night of Friday, 10th March, and Saturday, 11th March, by the Employers' Federation, as follows:
In respect that it had been represented on behalf of certain trade unions that the policy of these unions, as settled by their members, is in contradiction of the principles contained in the Memorandum under discussion, and that on this account it is not possible for the executive councils of these unions to make a joint recommendation on the subject, the federations agree that the unions represented by the present deputation be allowed fourteen days for the purpose of ballot, the returns of the ballot to be in the hands of the federations not later than the first post on 25th March, 1922. In the event of the ballot of any of the unions being against acceptance notices will thereafter be given to the members of such unions employed by federated films that their services will be dispensed with.

On Saturday, 11th March, representatives of these three unions met and decided to ballot their men on the memorandum of 17th and 18th November last, excepting, as I have said, Clause 4. That ballot is now proceeding. The result will be notified to the employers not later than Saturday next first post. That is the short record of the matter up to date. The House has heard the men's case from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes), and the hon. Member (Mr. Young), and it has heard the employers' case from the hon. Member (Mr. Gould). We have also heard a speech from the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson), and, as usual, he is rather difficult to classify. I was a little concerned as to which category I should put him in. I should like
to read his speech in print to see if I can classify him. I shall not discuss the merits of either case. I observed with considerable interest that both my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Gould) are on common ground in one matter. Both agree that the Government has done something wrong, or has left something undone. That is the only point where they come anywhere near approaching each other. I leave it at that. I am not sure I would not rather have them all going for me than going for each other. I am, however, invested with certain responsibilities to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) has called my attention under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919. Under Part I of that Act a trade dispute, existing or apprehended, may be reported to the Minister of Labour, who has thereupon to consider the matter and take such steps as seem to him expedient to make a settlement. If he thinks fit, provided both parties agree, he may refer the dispute for settlement by arbitration. There is a little misunderstanding on that. I cannot impose it on the parties. It must be agreed. Under Part II, whether a trade dispute is reported to the Minister or not the Minister may inquire into the) causes and circumstances of the dispute, and if he thinks fit, may refer any matters connected with the dispute to a court of inquiry.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: With regard to Section 2, can the dispute be in being or apprehended, the same as in Part I?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Speaking offhand, I should say the circumstances are the same. The Clause says, "Where any trade dispute exists or is apprehended." My right hon. Friend is right and my offhand answer is right. There is no distinction. I never supposed there was. A court of inquiry may be appointed by the Minister without the consent of the disputants. The report of the court of inquiry is not an award, like that of an arbitration court. A court of inquiry may make recommendations, and it is open to the parties to accept or reject them. That is the short story of my commission under the Industrial Courts Act. It has been put to me, "Why have you not put this into force? You have neglected your duty in not doing so." I do not want to do other than follow my right hon. Friend in the most admirable temper in which
his speech was couched, but it was rather suggested that I should have done so if it had been in favour of the employers. I do not think that is a fair thing to say, because in the two cases in which I have put Part II into operation it could not be said that the employers were altogether in favour of my doing so. In one of them I think I may say they rather objected to it, but I put it into operation to prevent a lock-out. Therefore I may be allowed to comment on the suggestion that I should have acted otherwise if the boot had been on the other foot. I do not think that can be sustained. Of course, I had given and am giving the most anxious consideration to the question of my duty under the commission with which the Industrial Courts Act invests me. My immediate difficulty is the fact that a ballot is now in progress on the part of three other groups of trade unions. These three groups cover no fewer than 47 trade unions. I put it to the House, could I bring the machinery of the Industrial Courts Act into operation while these ballots are proceeding? My view is that I could not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Before the ballot."] I do not know what authority the hon. Member has to say that. I could not bring the Industrial Courts Act into operation while those ballots were proceeding. That, I think, would be an improper intervention, an intervention which in other circumstances and at another time might be sharply resented by trade unionists themselves. I can conceive circumstances in which they might object to intervention. It has seemed to me, therefore, that I was bound to defer my decision at any rate till the decision of the men had been taken.

Mr. HENDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what the Government had in its mind when it included in Part II the words "A dispute is apprehended"?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Exactly what it had in Part I. It was the duty of the Minister to do his best, I imagine, to bring the parties together—to seek conciliation. I felt that I could not use this machinery while the ballots were in progress, and I have to defer my decision, whatever it will be, until the ballot has been taken.

Captain O'GRADY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman was deliberately
asked by the unions to the dispute to operate Clause II before the ballot was taken—before even it was framed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will accept that. The hon. Member is probably right, but my policy has been to bring the parties together, and keep them together, and see if they cannot compose their differences. That has not been altogether unsuccessful, I am glad to say, on other occasions. The ballot will be closed at the end of this week, and I make this appeal to both parties to the dispute. It seems to me to be the duty of both parties directly these ballots are known, whatever the decision may be, to consider whether they cannot get together again without delay and see whether they cannot by that means compose their differences. That ought not to be impossible, and I shall first of all wait for the ballot and then see what action is to be taken. I hope there will be action. I hope we shall have an undertaking now that that endeavour will be made once again to come together and try to compose this difference, and I appeal to any in this House who have any authority on either side—and there are many who have authority—to come together, sit round the table and try to find a way out of the difficulty. I feel confident that I shall not make that appeal in vain. I would rather leave the final determination of the question of Part II of the Act until an opportunity has been given for that endeavour to be made.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This really is an extraordinary Debate. The case for the engineers has been put by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes). It has been put almost as well by the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson). It has been put by the hon. Member (Mr. Young) and the Chairman of the Employers' Federation, who has been present at every one of the conferences, who has led the whole attack from the employers' side, has sat in this House, listened to all that has been said, and has said nothing. I suppose we may judge from that the sort of attention that gets put to the trade union case when it is put before the conference. That sort of attitude is the universal attitude now where the workers and the masters come together. It is an example for this House, and it is an eye-opener for some of us to understand the conditions under which these negotiations are carried on. The Government sit and look on. It is not
their affair. Unemployment in the country has increased by leaps and bounds. They sit there and continue to wash their hands, like Pilate. They are not concerned in this dispute. They are going to keep outside the ring and let the workers fight it out with the hon. Member (Sir A. Smith). That would be all right if the parties were evenly matched, but at present, with two millions unemployed—thanks to the Government—the workers have not much chance. It is not a fair fight, and the Government are hardly justified in allowing not only the trade of the country but the workers of the country to be smashed by this federation led by the hon. Member (Sir A. Smith). The right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) told us that he could not have this inquiry under Part II of the Act while the ballot was on. I should like to have had that amplified as to why he could not. The real reason is not the ballot. The real reason is the hon. Member for South Croydon and the people who direct the Government. I now understand the plaintive appeal of Mr. Garvin to the Prime Minister in yesterday's "Observer":
Come out of it, my soul, come out of it.
That is the only thing that any Member on the Treasury Bench can do who really values anything of Liberal traditions. The Members of the Government sit there and allow this dispute to go on. It is their business to take no part in saving the country. It is their business to hold the ring when their friends are strong. I suppose that this Debate will now close, and that we shall not have an opportunity which the House, irrespective of party, has been looking forward to, of hearing the case stated for the employers. We shall not hear it, for the very good reason that there is no case.

Sir A. SMITH: What we have just heard convinces me of the absolute unwisdom of endeavouring to discuss realities in the atmosphere in which we are placed at the moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have got you on your feet—"] That may be so, and I hope before I sit down that a different atmosphere will prevail. I have been very much struck with the discussion which has taken place this afternoon and the discussion which has taken place in the newspapers, reminding me more of a general election than of a labour dispute.
Personal attacks, deliberate misstatements, and attempts to give a wrong impression of the whole situation, have given this position a sense of acrimony that is entirely unnecessary, which does not exist at all, which should not be allowed to exist, which is due to political intervention and not due to any disagreement which has taken place between the employers and the workpeople.
We have had from the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) a very long statement, which has made me admire him for one reason and one reason alone, and that is that he makes an excellent advocate of a very bad brief. I am perfectly satisfied that he did not understand one little bit of the dispute which exists between the engineering employers and their engineering employés. At the same time, he has made a very plausible case, and I propose to answer him in detail. He referred to the question of the overtime agreement. The overtime agreement has nothing whatever to do with this case. The overtime agreement is one of those details which brings into light a general principle, and that general principle is an evidence of the difficulty which has arisen in connection with the overtime agreement. There is no question of overtime, there is no question of manning machines, there is no question of any details of workshop organisation in the dispute which at present exists.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, and as the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young) said, the trouble with which we are faced at the moment is a direct, pronounced, and declared now for the first time, intention, that hereafter the employers' liberty to manage their own factories shall be modified; dual control shall exist, and the right of veto shall be placed on the actual management. It is for this House to say whether they have come to that frame of mind, whether they are going to turn up the whole system which has prevailed in this country and other countries from the beginning of time, and say that the employers, on whom is the responsibility for managing their works, are to be controlled in such a way that they may go into their shops and find that, notwithstanding that they have instructed a certain thing to be done, the shop steward, the workman, or the representa-
tive of the workman may come and say: "Yes, you instructed that, but I said that it is not 10 go on until I have arranged the matter with you." I ask this House seriously and deliberately whether they are prepared to admit that that time has come, because if they are the engineering employers are not.
Another point which the right hon. Member for Platting altogether ignored is what we have actually done in the past. I think I am right in saying that the engineering employers have given to the trade unions a measure of representative discussion which does not exist in any other trade. We have what is called "Provisions for avoiding disputes." These were settled in 1898, but in the course of time we found that the executive governments of the trade unions were not sufficiently powerful and their constitution was not sufficiently able to control the irresponsible elements who, during the War, insisted on what is known as direct action, ignored their own constitution, ignored the Government, and by means of strikes sought to get what they desired. We realise, and I have no doubt that other people have since realised, that there is a certain amount of evolution going on in connection with industrial affairs, and we found that there was a desire that the arrangements we had for conciliation should be arranged in order to give further discussion in the shops by representatives of the men directly concerned. We therefore came to an agreement with a large number of trade unions in 1919, called the Shop Stewards and Works Committees Agreements, which gave the unions a complete measure of discussion at every round corresponding with every representative stage that they had, either by their official or unofficial means.
We constituted the works committees in the fond belief that of all the troubles 90 per cent. would be far better settled in the shop than to allow them to increase in importance and grow in difficulty as we went from stage to stage of discussion. Accordingly, we made provision for setting up the works committees. What happened? A large proportion of the trade unions refused to have anything to do with the agreement because they said: "We are not going to have anything to do with shop stewards. We are not
going to have anything to do with works committees. We are going to deal with the employers direct, and to force our ideas upon them. "What happened at the end of 1918 was the first deliberate attack that was made on the part of the unofficial movement upon the employers' right to manage their factories. There is no doubt that that was deliberately engineered. There is no doubt that it would have wrecked the whole of the trade union movement. It was designed to do so. Those who had the intention of carrying through that movement said deliberately: "The trade union movement is nothing to us. Our officials have nothing in common with them. We are going to get at the employers, and by the force of a stoppage to compel the employers individually to do what we wish." They tried it, and, a good thing for the country, they failed, and I think that every constitutional trade unionist will be glad that they failed, because otherwise the whole machinery of trade unionism would have disappeared.
We are accused of trying to smash the trade unions. A more absurd proposition was never enunciated by any serious body of men. The president of the main organisation which is affected by this stoppage of work has given it as his deliberate and considered opinion that that statement is absolutely unwarranted in fact. Were it true, what should we gain? Why should we smash the trade unions? We have to live with the trade unions. We have lived with them for 25 years in my own knowledge and experience. We hope, at least I personally hope, that the trade unions will become infinitely stronger than they are, subject, however, to two conditions, that with their strength they will get a strength of discipline based on democratic foundations, and that if the workpeople who are trade unionists elect their representatives they will conform to the instructions of their representatives, and not turn them down as they have been in the habit of doing since the middle of the War. The strength of the trade unions will be increased by the fact that every member of a trade union is prepared to take his share in the ballot. That they should be left in the position that the whole of them are locked out, and that that calamity should come on the country at a time when they can little afford it, because three-fourths of the membership has no
apparent interest in the subject at issue, and they allow the matter to be dealt with by less than one-fourth of the membership, is an absolutely appalling state of affairs. The total ballot which took place did not exceed 87,000. At that moment there were nearly 93,000 unemployed, but not even the unemployed trade unionists thought fit to go and take part in the ballot which had such a serious effect upon their industry.
7.0 P.M.
In regard to overtime, I hope the trade union leaders do not think the employers are more foolish than themselves. I put it no higher than that. I think they will agree that we are not going to have overtime, with the increased cost of overtime, on production work, if by any other means we can avoid overtime. Overtime is always a difficult problem. You get a man at the end of the day, when his energies are mainly exhausted, and you ask him to work overtime. In addition to that, it means that under present conditions overtime costs us 50 per cent. more than day work. There is more difficulty in the regulation of overtime in slack time than there is in the regulation of overtime in busy time. In busy times there is a certain amount of resiliency in a department, and you can accommodate the slackness in one department by having an increase in another; but. when it comes to short time, such as we have at the moment, there is not that variation, and the result is that in order to get men in several departments employed and to increase the numbers employed in these departments, it may be necessary that, notwithstanding the fact that so many men are unemployed, as in the department in question, there ought to be some overtime worked. In this case, those who understand the position will realise that you cannot always get additional men to come in and do the work of the men who are actually engaged on a job. I do not think that is is well that I should enter into a question of controversy in view of the discussion which has taken place, but I want to make one or two well-defined and serious points. The only question at issue is whether or not we are going to have the right to maintain the privilege we have hitherto enjoyed, namely, to manage the factories as employers, or whether, on the other hand, there is to be a dual control, and our right of management is to be subject to the veto of representatives of the
workers. That question was settled between about 40 employers and about 40 representatives of the engineers, and we came to a conclusion which said that the instructions of the management were to be carried out pending any question arising out of its instructions being dealt with in accordance with the provisions which we had arranged. I do not see what any Government Committee of Inquiry or other body can do any better than 40 employers and 40 trade unionists who understand the position. If the Government appoint an inquiry to override the judgment of these people—who came to a definite conclusion and agreement—they will do the very worst thing in the direction of discouraging private, friendly, and confidential discussions between the two sides most directly concerned. After we had obtained that agreement we were asked, in order that there might be no doubt as to getting it through the membership, if we would allow the trade union to carry through the ballot in its own way. We said "Yes," and instead of the ballot occupying a fortnight it took two-and-a-half months. The agreement was come to in November, 1921, and the ballot was reported on the 27th January, 1922. The ballot was against us, and we found we were up against, not a question of overtime, not a question of detail, not any normal position at all, but against the fundamental principle on which the whole relations of employers and workpeople are based. We had to face that, and when we faced that we realised that we could not settle that question with any one union, but that we must settle it as a general question affecting the whole industrial situation and with all the unions representing the people we employ. We had to settle that question with 73 trade unions, and barring the engineers a large proportion of those trade unions are at present balloting.
The only thing I would like to say to those trade unions at the moment is this. We are not attacking you. It is all very well to say we are imposing our will upon you, but there is no justification whatsoever for such a statement. The engineers have called in question the fundamental principle which has been recognised as the cardinal principle and foundation of the whole structure of industrial relationship. We say to them, "Very well; if you call that in ques-
tion, we must see where we are." We have responded to their challenge. We have not interfered in the slightest degree in anything referring to the relations between the engineers and ourselves. We met the other unions, and gave them time to take ballots of their unions. One reason for our adopting that attitude may be of importance and interest to Members of this House. We asked them personally to say whether they would recommend this proposal to their members, and they told us when we met them that in respect that several of their constituent bodies—that is, the trade unions—had for 12 months, and some for a less period, determined that the employers were no longer to have the rights they had hitherto enjoyed, they could not be asked to make a recommendation because it was against the express wish of their membership by ballot. If anything could have justified us in the attitude we adopted towards the engineers, when we found out what was at the back of their minds causing all the difficulty, it was the fact that the representatives of several of the other trade unions came and said, "We have already, without saying anything to you, made up our minds to the extent of 12 months that you are not going to be allowed to carry on your industry as you have done hitherto. We said quite frankly and definitely, "You will have to face this position. We should never have thought of raising this question. It has been raised for us. It has now been raised, and it has to be settled. Any agreements which we have made with you were made on an entirely different foundation, an essential condition being that we were entitled to exercise managerial functions. You have called that in question, and we must see where we are, because until we do, and until we are able to manage our own factories, we can make no arrangements with you or anybody else." Accordingly, they have come to a ballot.
There has been a good deal of acrimony and personal feeling introduced into this Debate, and I regret particularly the words of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) and of the right hon. Gentleman who acts as Vice-chairman of the Labour party (Colonel Wedgwood). If we are to indulge in personalities, it is
an easy task, but it is one highly unprofitable and not in accordance with the dignity of this House. Not only so, but it is difficult for anyone in the representative capacity in which I find myself today to carry on with any feeling of security at all if, instead of dealing with principle, instead of dealing with a movement, instead of dealing with a broad basis, one is to feel that there are these agreeable persons who desire to depreciate the basis of the principle and prefer to make personal attacks, forgetting that that is a weapon that recoils with more force upon themselves than that with which it strikes the person attacked. Therefore I do not propose to go into that matter, and will go no further than to say this—and I say it to the Unions who are now balloting. If they are prepared to agree with us in principle that we are still to have the right to manage our factories we shall be more than pleased to sit down with them in conference while their men are at work in order to come to an agreement with them as to the manner in which these managerial functions are to operate. If, on the other hand, they say to us that we are not to have the power to operate these managerial functions, then I am afraid we shall feel that is such a large issue as will compel us to treat this as an absolute deliberate attack on the present system of conducting industry, and we shall have to make up our minds what we intend to do in reply. I hope, and I had hoped before the engineers' ballot came along, that seeing that we have to live with the unions in the future, and that a settlement under duress and after a period of strife is always a thing to be regretted, we should have been able to sit down in friendship, and while the men were at work to arrange the working conditions for the future, having regard to the conditions which prevailed in the War and before the War. Unfortunately, however, we were denied that opportunity by the engineers, who turned down the advice, of their representative body. If they give us an opportunity, we shall, without delay and with the greatest pleasure, sit down with them and see whether we cannot come to an agreement on this vexed question. If they do not do that, then, as I say, we shall have to face the situation.
It may be of interest to show exactly what has taken place. I would explain
that of the various unions with whom we have to negotiate, a very large proportion were grouped in three main bodies, and we met their representative. We had, however, half-a-dozen or eight unions who had not combined with any other body. The last one to meet us was last Thursday night at half-past five, and just before we were entering into the war zone the last of these unions, after the discussions with us, came back after an adjournment and said: "We are quite prepared to sign the agreement with you if you are prepared to sign it now." Before they left the conference room that agreement was signed. I am not unduly superstitious, but I do regard it as a remarkably good omen that the last union we should have met was the first to sign that document, and I hope with regard to the other unions saner counsels will prevail. We have no desire whatever to smash the trade unions, but have every desire to assist them to become more powerful, on condition that they will alter their methods in order to make their power a real power. We have no desire to interfere with collective bargaining, because we realise the amount of good work it has effected, but if we are going to be attacked from the point of view of any Communistic principle, then I submit to the House, as I have to the Government, that we are not going to tolerate that for one moment.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith) rose with the declared intention to reply to the case submitted to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). I am afraid that we cannot congratulate the hon. Member for South Croydon on the way he has stated that case. At any rate, I think I will be able to show that many of the substantial points upon which the case hinges he has entirely overlooked. He opened his speech by saying that overtime—out of which the dispute originated so far as the Amalgamated Engineering Union was concerned—was a mere detail, and he subsequently put before the House the fact that the real issue was the question of management, and, as I will be able to show, the question of management with a new interpretation. Could we be convinced that the hon. Member for South Croydon in his capacity as chairman of the Engineering Employers' Federation
was prepared to put the old interpretation on management, I think, there would not be very much between us. He said more than once that the interpretation that they were now putting upon management was due to the fact that we were endeavouring to establish what he described as dual control. I venture to challenge that statement entirely. There is a vast difference between dual control and that spirit of mutuality by which the very agreements that the Engineering Employers' Federation have entered into with the workmen's organisations should be interpreted and should be applied in the workshops. The interpretation—

Sir A. SMITH: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the agreement to which I have referred, and whether any trade union with which he is connected has ever been a party to that arrangement?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am aware of the agreement, and I have all the agreements in my possession. As I allowed the hon. Gentleman to state his case in his own way, I trust he will extend to me the same-courtesy. I say the interpretation which the Engineering Employers' Federation is now placing upon the term "management" or "managerial functions," creates an entirely new situation. It is the situation which, if I read the shorthand notes of the conferences which have-taken place during the last few months correctly, strikes, in my opinion, at the very foundations of collective bargaining, and would very seriously prejudice many of the very agreements which the Employers' Federation have entered into. The interpretation means this: The manager is to give an order, and however new the work may be, however adverse to the principles upon which the work may have been done in the past, or however obnoxious to the workmen, the order must be executed and the working conditions entirely changed for the time being. It has to be admitted, of course, that the workman has redress in being able to put in a complaint, and that complaint has to be heard, subsequent to the objectionable work having been entered upon. He has a right to complain, and a form of negotiation will be carried through under the arrangements that exist.
I want to show, having been mixed up, not quite so much as I am now, in earlier years with these negotiations, that that is an entirely new principle. I happened to be the instrument in creating two Conciliation Boards in one of the industries that have been dragged into this dispute which, as I will show presently, never sought a dispute, and had nothing to do with it, but were dragged into it, and not requested, as the Minister of Labour has said, but given an ultimatum to do certain things, and told that if they did not do them within a certain time the employers would consider what course they would adopt against the organisation. I refer to the iron founding industry. I hold in my hand two sets of rules of Conciliation Boards which I was instrumental in setting up, one in 1894 and the other in 1908, and I think that I am entitled to say that the fact that I was instrumental in setting up these two Conciliation Boards is evidence, at any rate, of my anxiety to try to maintain the relations between the employers and the workmen in the most conciliatory and most peaceful manner.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Are they still in operation?

Mr. HENDERSON: They are not, I am sorry to say. It is no fault of mine that they are not in operation, but it is good evidence to show what did obtain in those days. In the rule of the first of these Boards it is provided that
pending the decision of the Standing Committee the full Board or referees"—
because we had a rule that enabled us to go to arbitration in the event of our failing to arrive at a settlement by conciliation—
of any question covered by the rules the working conditions shall remain unchanged.
The other rule reads:
There shall be no stoppage of work in the nature of a strike or lock-out pending the decision of the Board on any question, and all working conditions shall be those current at the time when notice was given.
Is this the interpretation of managerial functions? If an order is given and the workman thinks it is so objectionable, so inconsistent with custom, practice, and principle, that he cannot immediately enter upon it, is the interpretation of managerial function in harmony to-day with the position that I have shown to
exist when these two Boards were in operation in the engineering industry? If not, then I hold that I have made my first point, that it is a new interpretation, and as a new interpretation that it strikes right down to what I have already said are the roots of collective bargaining. To those of us who have been associated with the engineering industry, as I have been for some 38 years, it is difficult to understand the attitude of the employers on the present occasion. They have fixed this issue. If there is trouble in the engineering trade to-day, it is not a strike. Those of us who have read the whole history of the negotiations with the engineers know full well that, even to the extent of the leaders recommending that which they knew, as they must have known, would be received with hostility by great numbers of their members, they did everything in their power to come to a satisfactory arrangement, and the responsibility is not theirs, and I may say in all friendliness that this House is never slow in imposing the responsibility, when that responsibility rests on the working men's side. It is fresh in our memories how, time after time, that happened when we had the Debates in this House, when the mining industry was in the state of turmoil in which it was last year. But not only have the employers fixed the issue but they have gone further, and this is the most serious part of all, they have considerably extended the scope of the dispute, and I want now to refer, even in detail, to the mariner in which they extended the dispute to the organisation with which I happen to be connected, and of which I have been a member for so many years. I would remind the House again that the 47 unions outside the Amalgamated Engineering Union had no dispute with the employers on this question. That wants to be kept in mind very clearly.

Sir A. SMITH: On a point of Order. I have already said, and I think that my right hon. Friend will not disagree with me, that a number of the trade unions told us that they had a disagreement with us because they had made up their minds, by a ballot of their members, that they were going to alter the present state of affairs.

Mr. HENDERSON: That is neither a point of Order nor a sufficient answer to the statement which I am making. I am
referring now to the General Labourers' Federation, the Shipbuilding Engineering Federation, and the National Union of Foundry Workers, and, so far as the National Union of Foundry Workers are concerned, I have here a statement of a conference that was held as recently as the 4th of March, and I must weary the House by quoting it, in order to let the House see how this union was dragged into the present dispute. The Member for Croydon (Sir A. Smith), in opening the conference said:
This conference has been arranged in view of the letter we sent you on the 21st of February wherein we referred to the difficulty which had been raised in connection with the employers' right to maintain the functions they have hitherto exercised in the matter of managerial acts, and we gave you copy of correspondence which we have had with the Engineering Trade Union and also directed your attention to a particular clause in a letter which we sent to them of which we enclosed you a copy and asked you to meet us. Now the general position to-day, which I understand from what we have been informed you are aware of, is this: that for the first time a serious attempt has been made to call in question the right of the employers to manage their establishments—
This is a right that the union, so far as I know, has never called in question, the right of the employers to manage their establishments—
and seeing that the question has been raised by one trades union—deliberately raised—raised on a ballot, notwithstanding the agreement which we arrived at with the council, the national and district representatives of that union, we have made up our minds that the time has come to settle this question once for all, and to realise whether in the future we are going to carry on on the basis of the employers having the right to maintain the exercise of their managerial functions or whether the ballot which has been taken is indicative of the attitude of the men.
This is to a union that has never balloted—
We have further realised that there is no use having a settlement of a fundamental issue like this with one particular trade union. We must know exactly where we are in order that we shall be able to deal with matters in the future, because, obviously, we cannot make an agreement with anybody until we know whether or not we are going to be allowed to manage the factories. All the agreements we have actually made were made on the basis that we were entitled to do so, and if that position is called in question the agreement which we have made is of no avail at all and we cannot proceed now until we know where we are on that particular point.
And then this statement occurs, and I want the House to note it—
If you are not prepared to agree that we are entitled to keep on industry on the basis which has hitherto existed"—
—and so far as this union was concerned, this was the basis certainly up to the beginning of the War when these two Conciliation Boards existed—
then I am afraid we will have to make up our minds as to what policy we are going to adopt with regard to your members. If, unfortunately, a stoppage of work should take place with any of the Unions, owing to the fact that they are not prepared to admit the rights we hitherto have been entitled to exercise being continued in the future, then I must say to you perfectly clearly and definitely that in respect of those persons whose employment is interrupted for that reason there will be arrangements made whereby the terms and conditions on which these men will be permitted to resume work will be laid down by us.
There is the iron heel, if ever we had it. Though I have been negotiating in the engineering trade for more than 30 years, I have never heard of an ultimatum like that. Then we are asked, in face of the evidence that I have given that they had that interpretation of managerial functions before the War, whether our members are not being dragged into this dispute to which they were not parties, by being asked whether, they are prepared to accept these conditions, as if not, they will be locked out, and that when they come back they will come back on the conditions laid down by the hon. Member for Croydon. Here is the sort of dialogue that took place. I think that it is very informing, and at the risk of wearying the House I am going to ask them to listen to it:
EMPLOYERS' REPRESENTATIVE: We cannot admit that we are not entitled to exercise the various managerial acts we have hitherto exercised or to exercise them in future, subject to the consent of the trades unions or their representatives or subject, as was put to us, to a right of veto.
WORKMEN'S REPRESENTATIVE: But if a change was wanted on the other side, if the men wanted a change, the conditions all along have been for mutual arrangement, and that the status quo remain until it was definitely settled. This is the only fair position.
EMPLOYERS' REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, but we are not going to allow the men to interfere with the management so long as the present state of society exists and the present structure of industry is maintained. We are either going to manage the shops or the shops are not going to run. Do not let us be under any misapprehension about it.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Where was that said?

Mr. HENDERSON: It was said at the conference to which I have referred with the Engineering Employers' Federation, over which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith) presided on 4th March, 1922. The document goes on:
WORKMEN'S REPRESENTATIVE: I suggest to you that Section 3 of the Memorandum is a fundamental alteration from what has previously existed.
EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE: No, I do not admit that, but even taking it on your basis that is the fundamental condition which is going to operate in future.
WORKMEN's REPRESENTATIVE: I cannot see how it is going to operate. I want to know what the men will do if they want a change. If they go to the management and say, 'We want a change of certain conditions,' what will they do?
EMPLOYERS' REPRESENTATIVE: The management will decide whether or not it is prepared to accede to the request.
WORKMEN'S REPRESENTATIVE: But if the management impose their conditions then the natural position would be to stay outside until we come to an arrangement. That appears to me to be an equitable position.
May I say, in passing, that, so far as the engineers' union is concerned—the same does not apply to my own union—they cannot stay outside. That is the irony of the whole situation. They have a provision for the avoidance of disputes, and however objectionable the order of the management may be, they cannot go outside. They are bound to remain in by the provision for avoiding disputes. That is the most objectionable part of the whole thing. They are bound hand and foot, and dare not go on strike. The conversation goes on:
EMPLOYERS' REPRESENTATIVE: It may be quite equitable from your point of view, but it is not what is going to take place. It is all very well. What you suggest now presumes one thing, and one thing alone—that the operation of the factory is to be subject to dual control. We are not going to have that. We are going to manage the shops and nobody else.
Let us be quite clear. That is the issue. Those are the conditions laid down by the employers' organisation. As I have said, we were no parties to the trouble, but have got this ultimatum. Here is the letter that was sent:
My National Council have had under consideration, with the assistance of the transcript of shorthand notes, the proceedings of the conference between representatives of your Federation and this Union held
at Manchester on Saturday last. My Council recognise that the questions are addressed to them directly, and in compliance with your demand for a reply by Saturday, 11th March, I am now instructed to write you to state that as we are not parties to any dispute on the point raised, we protest against being drawn in by your Federation without any provocation on our part. As you raised the matter and gave us but one week to decide, the whole onus of the position rests with your Federation, and my National Council cannot agree to sign the suggested agreement nor can they enter into any joint recommendations to accept your proposals.
I think I have said sufficient to show that this creates an entirely new position. It is asking the men to work a new interpretation altogether.

Sir A. SMITH: I do not desire to interrupt at all, but I wish to inform the House that the extract the right hon. Gentleman has quoted is an extract from a document of a kind which has been recognised for years between the employers and the executives of the trade unions as being strictly private and confidential.

Mr. HENDERSON: I hope we are going to conduct the Debate with strict accuracy. I challenge the hon. Member for South Croydon to show that I have quoted a single sentence from any document which is of a private and confidential nature.

Sir A. SMITH: Conference notes which are taken at central conferences are, and have always been acknowledged as private and confidential by the members of that conference, for the obvious reason that if there is not to be sufficient freedom of speech at these conferences to enable the members to appreciate what is in each other's minds, then nine-tenths of the value of those conferences is gone. The central authorities of the trade unions have gone so far in many cases as to deny the right even to their own district committees to see these notes.

Mr. HENDERSON: That does not prove that it was a private and confidential document. The executive council had to submit the matter to the members, and I have been quoting from a document that has gone to the whole of 40,000 or 50,000 members. That is not a private document, surely? I have the whole of the notes here. How can these documents he confidential? I have been mixed up with this business far too long for the hon.
Member for South Croydon to be able to say that these shorthand notes are private and confidential in the sense that we are not permitted to use them among our members or to lead our trade unions.

Sir A. SMITH: Not only that, but the executive council refuses to allow members or district committees to see them. If the right hon. Gentleman is as fully advised as he professes to be as to what is going on, he would realise that there have been resolutions sent to executive authorities that it is essential these notes should be disclosed to enable the district committees and members of the unions to see what their own representatives had said and thereby to have an opportunity of finding fault because they have not said what they should have said in accordance with the ideas of these local people. The only safeguards we have had in the interests of both sides has been that notes of conferences of that description are strictly confidential and private to the members composing the conferences.

Mr. HENDERSON: I must say that I cannot accept that in pleading a case, as we have to do to-day. Moreover, the hon. Member for South Croydon has been free to quote documents containing very serious statements against all the unions Members of the House have received today one such document. The hon. Member for South Croydon wishes to be permitted to do that sort of thing, and we are not to be permitted to quote from the transcript of the shorthand notes.

Sir A. SMITH: I have not been guilty of any breach of confidence.

Mr. HENDERSON: If the House is prepared to consider me guilty of a breach of confidence because I quote from the notes in order to defend the case of my own union when it is attacked, I am quite prepared to stand condemned for such an action. There was another speech today to which I must make a reference. It was the speech of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould). That speech was considered so valuable that the Minister for Labour replied to it as a speech in which the employers' case had been stated. I listened to the speech very carefully. It was interesting, but it seemed to me from beginning to end to be a speech in support of an inquiry. I think the hon. Member made some of the strongest statements that could be made to support the claim we have made for an
inquiry. For instance, he talked about the ballot and the way it had been taken. He talked about members of the union never having been given a ballot paper on which to record their votes. If this be a dispute which is hanging upon the decision of the ballot, that statement is the strongest argument why the matter should be probed to the bottom by an impartial court of inquiry. No cheer given in this House was louder than the cheer given to the hon. Member's closing statement, that the Government should see that ballots were properly conducted in the trade unions. If that be the view of the House, why do hon. Members to-day not stand by us when we urge the Government to get down to the foundation of this business? If the ballot has not been satisfactorily taken, we of the trade union movement are only too anxious to discover the reason why it is not properly taken. We will assist in the most searching investigation. We are exceedingly anxious to have ballots properly taken on every occasion.
The hon. Member for Central Cardiff also made a very eloquent plea about the condition of the shipping trade. He said that we had been living in a fool's paradise, that the conditions under which they were compelled to work were so onerous that it was nearly impossible to go on. All I can say is, that if his words and his appeal do not find acceptance with the general body of the workers in the country, it will be because there are such illustrations on the other side as one I am now going to ask the House to note. Here is a case that was reported in the Press a few days ago. There are some very strong phrases used by the judge who tried the case. It is a case heard at Greenock, "Loss of War profits; £51,000 damages asked." This is what the judge said:
They have put in an analysis of their pre-War profits as compared with their postwar profits, and from their analysis one could draw a certain inference as to how far in truth they were affected by the action of the Government.
This was a case where the Government had taken seven or eight fitters to work in another yard owing to the exigencies of the War, and the employers put in a claim for £51,000 damages. Here are the remarks of the judge:
The average pre-War profit for the five years ended December, 1914, amounted to £6,465; for the four years between 1914
and 1918 to £55,438, and for the two years 1919 and 1920 to £104,716.
The judge went on to say:
That was the firm that was making a claim against the Government, not founded upon any claim of common law, but upon the ground that it was a fair and equitable claim to make in respect of loss sustained by their having obliged a Department of the Government by sending eight fitters to work in some other firm.
I repeat that if the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff do not find acceptance among the workmen of the country, if the workmen cannot credit that shipowners and shipbuilders are really being so badly treated, it is because there are such illustrations as this to be placed on the other side. Finally, I want to say a word on the attitude of the Government. I am quite prepared to admit that the Minister of Labour has done everything in reason to keep these people together, but I cannot understand the final attitude which has been taken up with regard to the proposed court of inquiry. I am going to read to the House Clause 4 of the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, which is the first Clause in the second part of that Measure:
Where any trade dispute exists or is apprehended, the Minister may, whether or not the dispute is reported to dim, under Part I of this Act, inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute, and, if he thinks fit, refer any matters appearing to him to be connected with or relative to the dispute to a court of inquiry appointed by him for the purpose of such reference, and the court shall, either in public or private at their discretion, inquire into the matters referred to them and report to the Minister.
Then I want the House to particularly notice this:
A court of inquiry may, if it thinks fit, make interim reports. Any report of a court of inquiry and any minority report, shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament.
That is most important. Here is a dispute in existence affecting 300,000 men: here is a dispute apprehended, affecting additional hundreds of thousands of men. If there ever was a case that should be brought under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act it appears to me this is one of those cases. Part II of that Act was enacted in the interests of the public. It differs from Part I, because either of the parties may object to coming under Part I, but it does not matter if both object to coming under Part II,
the Government can still put Part II into operation. It cannot be denied that the public interest is affected by a dispute of such magnitude as the one which has now been entered upon, and its magnitude may increase in the course of a few weeks more. It is clearly in the public interest that a most searching inquiry should be held and that Members of all parties in the House should have the benefit of any report issued by whoever might constitute a court of inquiry under this Act.
I appeal to the Leader of the House to see whether he cannot take steps in this direction without waiting. The ballot is not returnable until Saturday, and more than probably, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday must elapse before real business can be entered upon, and even then you may have to appoint your court of inquiry. It seems to me that the setting up of a court should be proceeded with, that the preliminaries should be entered upon, and, as far as possible, that the influence of everybody should be brought to bear upon the organisation worthily represented by the hon. Member for South Croydon to ask them to withdraw the lock-out notices. This inquiry, if it is going to be a proper inquiry, must last for a long time, and it is no use holding that inquiry while there are hundreds of thousands of men resenting the treatment that they are experiencing in being kept compulsorily idle. Therefore, it seems to me that if the hon. Member for South Croydon and the Government and those of us who are exceedingly anxious to see this matter brought to a close, laid our heads together, we could get this court of inquiry set up. I believe if there is anything at all wrong, on the part of the workmen, as far as misinterpreting managerial functions is concerned, such a court would be the best method of elucidating it. I feel, from the purely public standpoint, that it is a disaster we should have had this lock-out just at the moment when trade was beginning to go in the right direction. It would be a terrible disaster if it should go on, as it might easily go on, for months, until orders now passing about have gone elsewhere. We should all deplore such a situation, and for all these reasons I again appeal to the Government to see whether they cannot at once set up a court of inquiry, in the hope that, as a
result, we shall have the engineering industry placed on a much more satisfactory foundation.

Colonel L. WILSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 162.

Division No. 51.]
AYES.
[7.54 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hayward, Evan
Rendall, Athelstan


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hogge, James Myles
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Irving, Dan
Seddon, J. A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Johnstone, Joseph
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slmm, M. T.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute]
Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander J. M.
Sutton, John Edward


Cairns, John
Lawson, John James
Swan, J. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Lunn, William
Taylor, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Thomas, Brig.-Gen, Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Tillett, Benjamin


Finney, Samuel
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Galbraith, Samuel
Morris, Richard
Waterson, A. E.


Gee, Captain Robert
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Wignall, James


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Halls, Walter
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hancock, John George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hartshorn, Vernon
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. W. Smith.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lindsay, William Arthur


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Atkey, A. R.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Forrest, Walter
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Barlow, Sir Montague
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Barnston, Major Harry
Gardiner, James
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Barrand, A. R.
Gardner, Ernest
Morrison, Hugh


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Neal, Arthur


Bell, Lieut. Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gilbert, James Daniel
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L (Exeter)


Betterton, Henry B.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gould, James C.
Newton, Sir Douglas G. C.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Brassey, H. L. C.
Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Guinness, Lieut. Col. Hon. W. E.
Morris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parker, James


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Carr, W. Theodore
Haslam, Lewis
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Casey, T. W.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Poison, Sir Thomas A.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cecil, Rt. Hon, Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hinds, John
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rodger, A. K.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dean, Commander p. T.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jameson, John Gordon
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Elveden, Viscount
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Evans, Ernest
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Fell, Sir Arthur
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Steel, Major S. Strang
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Viekers, Douglas
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Stewart, Gershom
Wallace, J.
Wise, Frederick


Strauss, Edward Anthony
Ward, Col, L. (Kingstonupon-Hull)
Wolmer, Viscount


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Waring, Major Walter
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Woolcock, William James U.


Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Tickler, Thomas George
Williams, C. (Tavistock)



Townley, Maximilian G.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tryon, Major George Clement
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS II.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, a Grant in Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants in Aid; of the Agricultural Wages Board, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

8.0 P.M.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I desire to ask the Committee to pass this Supplementary Vote, the total amount of which is £645,000, and the whole of which is met by Appropriations-in-Aid and savings, so that I have only put down what is generally known as a token Vote, amounting to £10. Of the £645,000, £400,000 is in respect of the expenses incurred in consequence of the very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which we have been experiencing and £245,000 is in respect of the employment of Admiralty trawlers, for purposes which I will describe later, by the Ministry over which I preside. The Appropriations-in-Aid which I have mentioned are principally the sums received in respect of the trawlers, amounting to no less than £190,000. The savings represent efforts in economy made by what I hope is a very well managed Ministry. We have been able to save a very large sum, partly due to the change of general policy and very largely duo to real efforts in economy. Altogether we are saving £80,000 this year on the cost of the staff of County Agricultural Committees, £35,900 by surrender of balances in the hands of County Agricultural Committees, £91,000 on improvement of the
cultivation of land, £83,000 on the Small Holdings Account, and £126,500 on the training of ex-service men, a very excellent scheme which is now finished. Therefore, from the financial point of view, we are really utilising Appropriations-in-Aid and savings and are not asking for any additional net amount.
With regard to the objects for which this money is asked, the first, as I have said, is in consequence of the very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. When a disease of that character breaks out, the law has always been that in the first instance the money required is found by the Local Taxation Account. Originally, I believe, stamping out the disease was regarded as a local service, and consequently in the first instance the charge is made on the Local Taxation Account, but the practice has been for many years that Parliament should vote an amount not exceeding £140,000, which is placed in what is called a Cattle Pleuro-pneumonia Fund, and out of that annual sum the Local Taxation Account is recouped by the sums taken out of it for this purpose. Of the £140,000, £40,000 is allocated definitely to swine fever. We generally spend rather more than £40,000, and the balance falls, and has done for a good many years, on the Local Taxation Account; but for other diseases, that is to say, pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, we have been in the habit of putting in the fund every year just a sufficient amount to cover the expenditure, and I think it is a great justification of the policy we have pursued in the past that for 32 years, since the plan of stamping out the disease, chiefly by the method of slaughter of the infected animals and animals in contact, was introduced, we have kept the country practically free at an average cost of £9,000 a year. That speaks very well for the manner in which the service has been carried out by the officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, and is a justification of the policy.
Now, however, we have had a very serious outbreak, quite unlike anything which has occurred since this policy was first initiated. This outbreak began a couple of months ago in the North of England. It broke out among cattle which were being sent from market to market for sale, chiefly store cattle, and unfortunately we were not notified. Of
course, we can take no action whatever unless we receive notification. It is all very well for people to say, Why did you let the thing get beyond you; why did not you take action sooner? Unless we are notified that there is foot-and-mouth disease on a farm or in a market, it is impossible that we should take action. We cannot have inspectors on every farm and in every market, and it is the duty of local authorities and of farmers and of all concerned to give notification at the earliest possible moment.

Dr. MURRAY: Is there any penalty for not doing so?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, there is, and in many cases we have prosecuted, and we shall have to prosecute in many more cases, I think, on this particular occasion. The whole matter is carefully investigated. On this occasion, unfortunately, the disease broke out in certain markets and got a tremendous hold, and at one time, I confess, I was very seriously alarmed as to whether it would not become epidemic all over the country, and as to whether it would, indeed, be possible for us to stamp it out. I am glad to say, however, that the measures which have been taken have been, on the whole, fairly successful, and I think we may say that we have the matter well in hand to-day. If I may weary the Committee with a few figures, I will just show how serious the outbreak has been, and also how very much better things are at the present time. We first heard of it on the 23rd January. I have no doubt it had been in existence for some days before, but we had not been notified. In the week ending 28th January, there were 33 outbreaks: in the following week, 266 outbreaks; and in the week after that, 294. It was at that time, that I confess, I felt the matter to be very serious indeed. Then, I am glad to say, there came a progressive decline. In the next week, the week ending 18th February, there were 174 outbreaks; in the following week, 114; in the week ending 4th March, 83; 11th March, 35; and 18th March, 30. Therefore, instead of having, as we were a month or five weeks ago, 300 outbreaks in a week, we have got it down to 30, and I hope we are in a fair way to stamping it out altogether.
The process, of course, has been a very large and extensive one, and it has
been very costly. There have been altogether 1,029 outbreaks, in no fewer than 43 counties. The number of animals we have slaughtered has amounted to 21,510 cattle, 17,971 sheep, 8,575 pigs, and 41 goats; a total of 48,097 animals; but the Committee need not be alarmed that we have thereby in any serious way depleted our flocks and herds. I have read some most extraordinary statements. I read the other day that I was the person who had slaughtered already half the cattle half the sheep, and half the pigs in the country. As a matter of fact, the percentage of cattle slaughtered is 0.32 per cent., or about one-third of 1 per cent.; in the case of sheep it is even less, that is to say, 0.09; and in the case of pigs it is 0.33. Therefore, I do not think there need be any serious alarm as to the depletion of our flocks and herds.
I want to say another thing. We are often charged with a policy of wholesale slaughter. That is not the case. We never slaughter any animals except those which actually have the disease or have been in such immediate contact that they may reasonably be thought likely to get it in the course of a day or two,' but all through, where it has been possible to use isolation with any degree of safety, we have adopted the isolation policy. From the very first, I said I did not think we ought to slaughter in the case of valuable pedigree herds. You are then destroying flocks and herds which have meant a great deal of care in bringing up and producing, and the country cannot afford to do that if it can be avoided. As a matter of fact, in the case of most valuable pedigree herds, the owners possess buildings where the animals can be isolated without any real fear of spreading the disease. I have extended that to other cases which fulfilled that test, where isolation was possible without any real fear of spreading the disease. On most ordinary farms that is impossible, and if you attempt isolation, you are bound to spread the disease. On most farms it is impossible to keep the animals really segregated, and therefore, in the case of 1,029 outbreaks, slaughter has been carried out in the greater number, but in 51 cases in England and Scotland we have adopted the policy of isolation. I have, of course, come between conflicting fires and been charged with slaughtering half the cattle in the country; on the other hand,
I have been very seriously criticised because in certain cases, where my officers thought it safe, I have adopted the policy of isolation, but I would point out that the policy of slaughter and compensation is not adopted for the purpose of insuring farmers against disease, or compensating them for losses. It is adopted merely in the public interest to prevent the spread of the disease, and if the spread of the disease can be effected without this expensive and ruinous policy of slaughter, naturally we adopt it.
As regards the cost, the cost altogether has been as follows. Compensation has amounted to £761,460. From that you must deduct £95,000 for what we call salvage, that is to say, the value of animals, not infected animals, but animals that have been slaughtered as contacts, which have been sold for food. That has happened in many cases, for we have slaughtered a large number of fat animals which may be perfectly ready for food, and in most cases they are valuable salvage. That gives a net total of compensation of £666,460. In addition to that, there has been the cost of administrative staff, including valuers, £30,500; and miscellaneous expenses, that is, expenses of slaughtering, disinfecting premises, and so forth, £123,500. Therefore, the estimated net cost up to the present moment is £820,460. It is very regrettable that this large sum should have been expended, but I venture to say, if we look at the facts of the case, and the experience we have had in this country, and the experience of other countries, we have been entirely justified in spending this money. It is quite true foot-and-mouth is a curable disease. It is quite true that a great part of the Continent adopts a policy of isolation, but where you have land boundaries no other policy is possible. What has been the result? They have foot-and-mouth disease in Prance, Belgium, Holland, Germany, and, in fact, all over the North of Europe continuously. The losses experienced by these countries in consequence of foot-and-mouth disease are very great. In France, in the years 1919–20, it is estimated that 855,000 cattle, excluding sheep and pigs, were affected by this disease, and it is estimated that the loss from mortality and loss of flesh and milk amounted to over £5,000,000.
The same thing was true in this country before we adopted this policy of stamping-out. In the year 1877, when foot-and-mouth disease was rampant, we endeavoured to deal with it solely by a policy of isolation. The disease continued up to 1885, when we adopted the present policy. It reached its height in 1883, when 219,000 cattle, 217,000 sheep and 24,000 pigs were affected, and it is estimated that the loss to the country in consequence of the outbreak in that year was equivalent to £1,500,000. On the other hand, countries that can adopt the policy of stamping-out, as we can with our island position, always adopt it. They do it in Scandinavia, where their land frontier is very unimportant. In the United States they adopted it with signal success in 1916. They then had, probably, the worst outbreak ever known, and they adopted a perfectly ruthless policy of slaughter. They killed altogether 170,000 animals, at a cost of over £2,000,000. Their Department of Agriculture have stated that, in their opinion, it was the best spent money they have ever expended, because, they entirely stamped out the disease in the United States, and they have not had any serious recrudescence of it.
Under those circumstances, I hope the Committees will believe that we have adopted the right policy. It was a very serious thing, but it had to be tackled, and I think, notwithstanding that some mistakes may have been made by my staff, the work has been very well done. I hear, of course, criticism that there was delay in carrying out slaughter, animals were held up unduly in trains and exposed in other places, and mistakes of that sort were made; but let me point out that this was a tremendous outbreak with a sudden rush of cases, and the staff was entirely inadequate for anything of the kind. We never had anything of the kind for 40 years, and it was necessary to adopt the most rigorous and drastic measures in order to tackle the thing at all. Although, as I say, mistakes have been made here and there, and delays inevitably have occurred, it speaks volumes for the staff that, although at one time we were getting 300 cases a week, the spread of the outbreak has been arrested, and we have now got it within reasonable limits.
As regards this particular Vote, the question arises how this money is to be found. As I pointed out, the regular
practice is for the money to be found, in the first instance, out of the Local Taxation Account for England and Scotland, and for the sum to be repaid year by year by Parliamentary Votes. This year we have taken the ordinary sum of £100,000 for foot-and-mouth, and £40,000 for swine fever in our Vote, but it is clear, if we are going to spend anything in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000—and we have already expended over £800,000—and place the whole of this on the Local Taxation Account, and only recoup it to the tune of £100,000, we shall be doing a thing quite unfair to the ratepayers of this country. For that reason, the Government have agreed that one-half the cost should fall upon the Local Taxation Account, and the other half should be met out of the Exchequer. Therefore, I have asked for this additional £400,000, which, with the £100,000 already put into my Vote, will make it up to £500,000, so that if the cost amounts to £1,000,000—and I hope it will not—half of it will be found out of the national fund, and that is the meaning of this particular Vote.
I have already explained the general policy we have pursued, because I thought, in voting these large sums, the Committee would like to have a general statement of policy. There are many difficult questions connected with it that have arisen, and will arise, and there are also points which have been raised as to the method of administration. I think that the whole of this question will have to be inquired into, and I have already taken steps to set up a strong Departmental Committee, over which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) will preside, to inquire into the circumstances and origin of this great outbreak, to consider the policy pursued in tackling it, and also the methods of administration, with a view to making suggestions as to any improvements, either in administration or in machinery, which may be necessary to deal with such a state of affairs should it arise in the future, as I hope it may not.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will that Committee invite evidence?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly; that Committee will take evidence from all and sundry who are capable of giving their views as to the origin of the
disease, the manner in which it was allowed to spread, difficulties of notification and methods employed in tackling it, and to make suggestions as to improvement. That is all I have to say at the present stage about the Vote, so far as it is concerned with this deplorable outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The other part of the Vote, £245,000, relates to the employment of Admiralty trawlers by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries during the years succeeding the War. What happened was this. The Admiralty possessed, at the end of the War, a number of trawlers. They had been used, of course, for war purposes, and had done exceedingly good work. It was always intended that they should be handed over to the trawler owners and authorities for fishing purposes as soon as possible. Some of these trawlers were trawlers that had been handed over by trawler companies. Others had been specially built with a view to their conversion for fishing purposes after the War. How we first went into the business was this. In 1919, when the herring fishery was at its height, there were a certain number of ex-service men who were fishermen, and who found that, owing to the fact that their drifters had not been given back by the Admiralty, they were out of a job. Therefore the Admiralty lent a certain number of drifters for the express purpose of employing the ex-service fishermen, and enabling them to take part in the fisheries. The business gradually expanded, and finally it was closed about a year ago.
I found when I took up my present position that the business was being carried on at a loss, and I took steps to close it down. It was always intended that some of these vessels should be handed over, by purchase, to ex-service fishermen, and that has been done in some cases, but the falling off in trade rendered that impossible in the great majority of cases, and in the meantime these ex-service men obtained good employment. The receipts were £100,000, and that meant that the fishing had been carried on at a loss of £7,000. In addition to that you have to add something like £10,000, the cost of reconditioning these vessels, that is, of fitting them up again for fishing instead of war purposes. The Admiralty, however, would have had to have done that in any case, and we make allowance thus
far. There is a sum of £7,000 coming to the Admiralty for stores, which means, taking all these items into account, a deficiency of £25,000.
In addition to that, there was another scheme during the railway strike of 1919. It was impossible to get fish landed at the ports transported by rail to London, and a number of Admiralty trawlers were used as carriers to bring the fish direct to Billingsgate. After that they were employed under the herring guarantee scheme to carry out the barrels of salted herrings for sale abroad. Under that head the gross expenditure was £83,000 and the receipts £88,000, giving a small profit of £5,000. Here, again, we have to take into account the cost of reconditioning which, as I have said, would have had to be done anyhow. We have to put into the account about £5,000 for Admiralty stores, and one ship was lost.
As the Committee know, the Government never insure in a business of this sort. It is generally understood, and has always been practised by the Government, that, if they did, their business is so big that the Government would pay insurance premiums certainly a good deal more than their usual losses are likely to be. The £25,000 on the fishing scheme bring up the net loss on the schemes to £55,000. There are thus, receipts £190,000, and a total expenditure of £245,000, giving a net loss of £55,000; nearly all of which will be found from savings or by the Appropriation-in-Aid, of which by far the biggest item is £190,000 fishery receipts. As, of course, it means the utilising of money for the purposes for which the money was not originally voted, I have to ask the sanction of the House of Commons. I therefore put forward this Supplementary Vote, and hope that the Committee will pass it.

Mr. ACLAND: The Minister of Agriculture has made a very clear statement for which the Committee must be grateful. I only want to traverse and to criticise really one point, and that is with regard to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The main argument of my right hon. Friend as regards foot-and-mouth disease was—and I agree—that the policy of slaughter was really essential and could be rightly applied in a country of this kind. The average amount over a large number of years had been £9,000; it
had, said the right hon. Gentleman, cost us that, so therefore there was really no question of the abandonment of the policy of slaughter. One therefore listened very carefully to discover that more recently in certain cases, at any rate, as I gather, because of the growing expense under this Subhead the policy of slaughter has been modified—in these cases where it is not practical to abandon it.
Out of a total of 1,029, 51 cases have-been dealt with. My point is: Is it worth it? These cases included those of pedigree stock which had a high value, no doubt, and which retain their value for breeding purposes after they had recovered—at least I hope so. I do not challenge the matter there; but there have also been cases where the isolation policy has been adopted where it is not a question of breeding pedigree stock at all, but fat stock. I referred a case of that kind to my right hon. Friend the other day in a district somewhere between Ripon and— Northallerton. He said—and of course quite frankly, as he would do—that the thing was becoming so expensive now that where isolation was possible, apart from the question of breeding stock altogether, isolation was to be adopted. I do not think the agricultural community really realises that at all; that on account of the growth of expense the policy of isolation is now being resorted to in cases which are supposed to be suitable, whether it is the case of important and expensive and valuable breeding stock or not.
We are coming to a difficult time of the year. In regard to the question of the infection of foot-and-mouth disease nobody knows how it is spread; nobody can say for certain. I think everybody will agree that it is possible that the infection is borne by birds. Personally I think it more likely that the recent outbreak in the North-east of England was caused by one of these flocks of migratory pigeons, which came over from the other side about that time than by any other way. At all events, that is a suggestion. Nobody knows, and the people who go into it, from the point of view of the Ministry so admirably, would not deny the possibility, about this time of the year when little migratory birds will be moving up through England quite-steadily, day by day and week by week, visiting every farm, every hedgerow, and every field, that the little weavers, the chitchaffs, and so on, may be responsible.
Having regard to the fact that the infection can be carried on the claws or the feathers of the birds, I am very doubtful to what extent it is really worth expecting that there can be absolute isolation in closed buildings, and to what extent it is really worth going in for a policy of isolation at all. I should like to know from the Minister in how many cases in these 48 there is really complete isolation in enclosed buildings, and to what extent, as in the case of most fat stock, there is access from the sheds in which the stock are confined and to the outer air, and, therefore, the possibility of periodical infection being picked up from the claws of migratory birds? I should like to know how the residuary half million—I agree the cost will be £1,000,000—will fall upon the rates. Will it be deducted from the general amount from the Central Exchequer in relief of rates; will it all become payable in this next financial year;, and what proportion is it estimated to be in comparison with the total amount in relief of rates annually coming from the central Exchequer?
Surely there has been enough time since the 23rd January, when the Minister became aware of this outbreak, to decide whether proceedings should be taken against the farmer who was guilty of not notifying this disease. After all, the evidence is difficult to collect unless action is taken immediately, and I hope my right hon. Friend is not going to wait, if he has good evidence for a prosecution, until a special Select Committee has sat and reported. Nothing would produce a better effect in showing and convincing farmers of their paramount duty in notifying this disease quickly than a prosecution taken by the Ministry against those persons who are believed to have been guilty of not notifying this disease at the earliest possible date.
There is another point which my right hon. Friend might have touched upon. Can he tell us in regard to this grave and serious matter whether there are any prospects of this question being cleared up by the researches which his officers have been making? I must have heard IS months ago that a ship had been procured on which researches were to take place, so isolated that no infection could spread. I know he cannot hurry the people engaged in research work, but I
want to know if there is any anticipation of being any nearer some useful results in this matter than we have attained during the last 30 or 40 years.
My right hon. Friend has made his general estimate £1,000,000, but can he give us any estimate with regard to the dates of the re-opening of our markets for the exportation of stocks to the Argentine? This is a matter of extraordinary importance to a very considerable section of the agricultural community, and it is from that point of view I was very much perturbed at the pursuit of the policy of attempted isolation instead of immediate slaughter. Considering that the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a policy of isolation, which must mean that freedom from infection cannot be reported for months and months before all the animals have recovered and are certified as being free from disease, at what date, if there is a continuance and a progressive decline of new outbreaks, does he look forward to be able to certify that the flocks and herds of this country are free again from disease? That date must be considerably delayed by the resort to a policy of isolation instead of slaughter, and the Committee, I am sure, would like to have some idea of the postponed date and as to when we may be able to export our breeding stock to the Argentine.
With regard to trawlers, how in the world is it that expenditure which has been going on in 1919, 1920 and 1921 only comes before Parliament to be regularised in March, 1922? My memory may be at fault, and the matter may have been put before us from year to year, but it is unusual in our Parliamentary method of dealing with expenditure to have a bill running over three years presented in the fourth year, and we should all like to know how that has happened. We always like to square up things year by year. It may be that this is the first year in which the bill has come in and the expenditure may have been greater than the receipts. We should like to know this because the House of Commons is jealous of any restriction on its power of having things explained year by year. I thank my right hon. Friend for having brought the matter so clearly to our notice, and I hope he may be able to deal with some of the smaller points which I have raised.

Mr. CAUTLEY: To my mind the most important statement made by the Minister of Agriculture is that this disease, in the case of the last outbreak, gained so much on the Ministry that for a time the Minister was in doubt as to whether he would be able to cope with it by the ordinary method of slaughter. One can quite see, with the difficulty of finance at the particular moment, how he arrived at that decision, but I think agriculturists have a right to know what steps are being taken to decide what line of action is to be adopted when a disease does make the progress it has done in this particular case. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the Departmental Committee that is being set up will have any power to consider the advantages between a policy of slaughter and isolation, or as to when the limit is to be reached when the slaughter ceases to be operative and isolation is to be adopted, whether it is to be left solely to the Minister if such a point arises, or what power the Committee is to have in dealing with these particular questions?
I am old enough to remember the time when no farmer ever bought cattle without assuming foot-and-mouth disease existed among the animals he bought. The cattle he obtained were, if it were in the summer, turned into a field and kept there for the disease to work itself out, or, if it were in the winter, put into a yard. They were treated in both cases with salt and water, and a very small percentage died. But so far as the whole country was concerned the loss thereby incurred was very large indeed. More serious loss is now incurred by this disease. If you take the case of cattle in milk when they are infected the loss is still more serious, and if the disease became epidemic there is not the slightest doubt the milk supply of the country would in a very short time be seriously curtailed. The time has gone by when the isolation policy can safely be adopted in this country. I hope that steps will be taken to carry out, as far as possible in the future, the policy of slaughter and to make proper financial provision for the same. I believe it is the only way to cure this evil, and the results of some 30 years experience have proved that it does not entail a very serious expenditure. I am not often a very friendly
critic of the Board of Agriculture, but I do think that it has tackled this outbreak with commendable promptitude and success.
I have one further matter to which I desire to call attention. It affects my own county. I do not understand the principle on which leave has been given to move cattle from an infected area into an unaffected area. It seems to me what ever the rules are, they need tightening up. Permission was given to remove a certain number of fat cattle from King's Lynn Market to Brighton. The County of Sussex is absolutely free from disease, and I cannot understand on what principle it is permissible to bring cattle from an infected area into an area totally free from disease. Fortunately the one or two infected animals that were sent were discovered in time, and were taken to the abattoir at Brighton. They were slaughtered, and sufficient time has now passed to make it pretty certain that no bad results are likely to follow. But knowing how easily the disease is spread, it does seem to me a very wrong system that allows such a transaction to occur because farmers sending their stock from the surrounding parts of Sussex to the abattoir at Brighton run great risks of the germs of the disease being brought back by the men and horses engaged in the operation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman therefore will consider the question of tightening up the regulations. How long are the Government going to continue the restrictions in areas reported free from disease? I do not think it can have been brought sufficiently to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that very serious loss is inflicted upon people in this way. For instance, in the County of Sussex, where most of the markets are small, the owners often find themselves at the mercy of a butchers' ring and a drop of 50 per cent. in the value is the result. This is a matter of urgency so far as their interests are concerned. I think the time has arrived when my own County of Sussex should be declared free.

Mr. JAMES GARDINER: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister of Agriculture on the clear and explicit statement he has made on the question of foot-and-mouth disease tonight. As far as it is possible for me to judge he made no attempt to cover any-
thing, but gave clear and definite information as to the Board's attitude towards this dire disease. The first thing that suggests itself to me is whether we have taken full advantage of animal research. It is all very well to go back to the year 1883, and say that certain things happened then. Since that time great progress must have been made. Suggestions certainly have come from the Continent that there are cures and preventatives of foot-and-mouth disease. I do not suggest that the policy of destruction may not be the more effective policy, but some of us would like to know whether any attempt has been made in this country to test the remedies that have been suggested as cures and the articles that have been suggested as preventing the disease altogether. The policy that exempt pure-bred stock from slaughter is, in my judgment, a correct policy. It would be a fatal thing if our best bred animals, which may be but slightly affected, were subjected to slaughter, and the breeding stock thus lost to the country. I assume that the Ministry is fully alive to the necessity for continuing animal research in every possible direction, and, therefore, I hope that the sum earmarked for this purpose will be so used. In Scotland last week, I was told, rightly or wrongly, that United States cattle were being landed at Glasgow and other ports. The Minister this evening suggested that the States had killed a large number of animals, and so stamped out the disease. I do not think he will go so far as to suggest that there is no such thing as foot-and-mouth disease in the United States of America. As to Canada, that may be another question, and it is one to which I think I had better not refer to-night. So far, however, as the States are concerned, I think it is an admitted fact that there is disease there. The cattle are landed at certain ports, and the men who kill them and handle them are in constant contact with home-bred animals, and there is, to say the least of it, the possibility that disease will be carried from the States cattle to the home cattle. In my judgment this requires supervision, and possibly we may get some explanation from it.
An hon. Member told me that, when he was in an English market the other day, he was hailed by an old farmer, who said to him, "If you want to know
the cause of this foot-and-mouth disease, I can explain it quite easily. The moment you begin to speak about bringing in Canadian cattle, that very moment the disease comes." He had evidently satisfied himself that the reason why the disease came was the discussion of the Canadian cattle question. Another case came to my notice in Scotland, in which a local veterinary surgeon diagnosed foot - and - mouth disease, but the inspector came along and denied the fact. In a few days, however, one or two of the cattle died, and it was found that the whole herd was affected. The Minister made allowance for that. He said that some of his officials had not done their duty as well as they ought to have, but I think that this at least was one gross case in which the inspector had not the information and the knowledge that he ought to possess. My right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) drew the Minister's attention to the present position as regards pure bred breeding stock as between this country, the Colonies and the Argentine. It is a very serious-position, and I am sure we need only appeal to the Minister to do his very best to allow these herds to be exported. The Argentine is badly in need of our stock, and so are our Colonies. The people at home are very short of food for the animals, and they are deteriorating in value. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture will help us as much as he possibly can to get the ports open at the earliest possible moment. I would ask the Minister in his reply to inform us if there is any alternative in his mind to the killing out process, or if he thinks that any benefit is to be derived from isolation under proper conditions. I again thank him for the information he has given us to-night.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. ROYCE: I am not in a position to criticise the action of the Minister with regard to the slaughter of cattle incidental to this outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, but I do think it was hardly necessary, in an important Department such as that of agriculture, that a great calamity like this should fall upon the agricultural community of this country and find us so totally unprepared in the matter of scientific research that it is necessary to appoint, a Departmental
Committee just in the middle of our troubles. I do not attribute any blame to the Minister of Agriculture in that connection, but it certainly does seem to me to imply that Ministers in the past have not been sufficiently alive to the interests of the country, and that we ought, at any rate, to be prepared with the very best scientific information as to whether the policy of slaughter or the policy of isolation and cure is the best in the circumstances. I should like to ask the Minister whether at the present time store cattle are not being imported into this country from Ireland, and, if that is the case, can he not consider the great disability which areas suffer that are free from any taint of foot-and-mouth disease, and whether he could not, under proper precautions, open the markets for store cattle? At this time of year it is a most important matter. In the county of Holland, for instance, we have not had a single outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and I would ask the Minister to consider whether, under proper precautions, by licence and otherwise, he could not permit store cattle to come into the markets. There is a very considerable demand for them. Farmers want to purchase store cattle, and the present method, although there are plenty within the area, does not give an opportunity of getting them into the markets and supplying the needs of the farmers.
In connection with the administration of the various Orders, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to two complaints which I have received. One is from the Pendleton Co-operative Society, and they say that eight beasts, slaughtered in their abattoirs, under 96 hours' licence, were condemned for foot-and-mouth disease after slaughter. Compensation was refused by both the Minister of Agriculture and the local authority. On the other hand, all carcases condemned for the same reason at the Manchester abattoirs were the subject of compensation. They want to know the reason for this inequality of treatment. The other complaint is from Long Eaton, also from a Co-operative Society. They say that of 33 valuable milking cows, one suspect was notified to the Ministry, and the inspector ordered isolation, or slaughter by the Society if they desired it. Twenty-two other beasts were affected later, and isolation was ordered, involving
great expense and heavy loss by reason of the waste of milk. Two subsequently died. The premises were selected for isolation because they were modern, large sums having been spent upon them. No compensation was allowed. Other farmers were ordered to slaughter, and full compensation was paid on farms in the neighbourhood where there was no provision made for isolation. What it really means is that those progressive farmers, co-operative and other, who have made adequate provision for the isolation of cattle are being penalised in consequence and that those who are more backward, and have no facilities for isolation, receive full compensation for the cattle which it is necessary in these circumstances to slaughter. I should like the Minister to be good enough to take these two cases into consideration. I have one or two other matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. One is with regard to the grant for small holdings. I think I shall be in order in doing that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that matter on this Vote. The only questions before us now are these two items for Foot-and-Mouth-Disease and Trawlers.

Mr. ROYCE: That is a great disappointment to me, because I have a long sheaf of indictments against the Minister.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That will be in order on the Minister's salary, but not now.

Mr. ROYCE: I shall have to save it for the right hon. Gentleman in that case. All that I have to say further in connection with the subject of foot-and-mouth disease is that I should like to join with other hon. Members in commending the Minister for his prompt action, in the absence of any other methods, but I should like him to remember that his Ministry have had many offers made to them. I know of one myself in particular, where people are prepared to pay the whole expense of testing the question of remedies for foot-and-mouth disease, and the Ministry would not, or could not, entertain the subject. Where there is so much doubt in the matter how this disease is carried it is very difficult for a layman to be very didactic on the subject, but now the trouble has assailed us the duty of the Ministry is to lose no time in
obtaining the very best scientific advice, and I hope the wholesale slaughter of doubtful or infected cattle will cease.

Mr. EDMUND TURTON: I should like, as one whose constituency has been grievously affected by the disease, to say one or two words on the subject. I desire to agree with other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister on the statements he has made, and I am certain I can join with others in saying his Department have taken every possible step to cope with this very unprecedented attack of foot-and-mouth disease. I also wish to thank him for having acceded at once to the request I made to him for a departmental inquiry into the origin and the circumstances connected with this disease, and whether in the opinion of that Committee any further powers were necessary for the Minister. I think the announcement he has made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), the Chairman of the Committee, will, in itself, be a sufficient testimonial that the inquiry will be very thorough and that every single matter connected with the disease will be thoroughly brought out. It would be very unwise for us to attempt to discuss whether the disease came through flocks of birds, or whether, as some suggest, it same from Ireland, because unquestionably that is one of the matters which will have to be inquired into. With regard to the very difficult question of slaughter as against isolation, I think we are, to a certain extent, entitled to give our opinion. I was very strongly of opinion, up to a short time ago, that the only possible policy was that of ruthless and remorseless slaughter. It may be suggested that because I have a brood of shorthorns I am somewhat interested in the question, but one is almost inclined to doubt whether the policy of slaughter has not been carried somewhat too far, in view of what has taken place during the past 10 days. "We understood the reason why certain animals were allowed to be isolated was that there was no money in the chest and no more proceeds were forthcoming for the purpose of paying compensation. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) has alluded to a case in Yorkshire which we both have in our minds. Those two animals, which were isolated and were kept, of course, under cover, properly tied up, the whole time,
are now beginning to put on flesh, and are undoubtedly far better animals than they were before they were attacked by the disease. We are continually being told in Yorkshire, by the older farmers, that time after time in their day, and in the days before them, animals which suffered from foot-and-mouth disease, and were allowed by a policy of isolation to get better, recovered the same as most of us recover from an attack of influenza. Therefore I suggest that if this, unfortunately, should go on very much longer, in certain parts where animals are affected the Minister will take counsel with some of us whether it is necessary to spend money in the slaughter of animals, and whether people whose premises are infected cannot be allowed to adopt the policy of isolation under strict supervision.
I think it will also be admitted by the Minister himself that probably he ought to be strengthened and be allowed to have further regulations. I understand he is unable to deal with the question of dogs which stray about in these affected areas. One of the greatest difficulties we have had in the North Riding of Yorkshire is with the stray dogs that come out of the villages. I went to my right hon. Friend, and he was most courteous as he always is, but he pointed out that so far as he understood what his powers were he could only order a general muzzling order. I pointed out that we were not afraid of being bitten by the dogs. We want a very drastic order from the Ministry that these stray dogs during the daytime are not to be allowed to roam at their own free will. Masters of hounds with that loyalty we should expect of them saw that it might be a source of infection and at once gave orders that all hunting must be suspended. It is a little hard, therefore, that these wandering dogs are going to be allowed to go free. Following up what the right hon. Member for Camborne said with regard to this sum of £400,000, I suppose what is going to be done is that the Exchequer contribution account will be charged with it. I want to join with my right hon. Friend in asking over what period of years will the deduction be made from the Exchequer Contribution Grants which are made to the County Council. In the past, I understand, it has been something like £9,000 a year in regard to the Diseases of Animals Act. It is going to be an
extremely important matter for us who have to arrange the finances and the rates of the different county councils if it is going to be done in any very large or wholesale way. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain exactly what is going to be the position in regard to these Exchequer Contribution Grants. I would ask him, so far as he possibly can, to recollect that the county council rates are extremely high, to a great extent owing to his agricultural policy which we have been ordered to carry out, and to let us down as easily as he possibly can. In fact I cannot help thinking it would be a very graceful act on the part of the Ministry if, instead of putting this £400,000 to the Exchequer Contribution Grants, he would come boldly to the House and ask for the full £1,000,000 to be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer and no part of it fall on the unfortunate ratepayers.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I think the Minister is entitled to congratulate himself on the Debate to-night, but the speech we have just heard shows the difficulties which surround this subject of foot-and-mouth. The hon. Member admitted that up to about 10 days ago he was in favour of ruthless slaughter, but that then for some reason or other he was prepared to admit that there was a good deal to be said for the policy of isolation. Of course, so long as there is foot-and-mouth so long will there be difference of opinion as to which is the best policy. I am inclined to think the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the right policy in the past in the policy of slaughter, though, of course, it is necessary that isolation should be resorted to in certain instances. In that connection I was particularly struck by what fell from the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) when he asked that the Minister should review the whole policy of isolation in view of the difficulty which might exist, particularly at this season of the year, from the infection carried by migratory birds. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take that point into consideration and review, the policy of isolation from that particular stand point. Then, again, reference has been made to the importance of knowing when it will be possible to send stock again to the Dominions and the Argentine and other ports. I hope the right hon Gentleman will give that matter his con-
sideration in order that he may inform the stock-breeding community at the earliest possible date what is to be his policy in that connection. There have been certain criticisms of the administration under the Diseases of Animals Act with reference to the foot-and-mouth disease by the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture. I should have wished, so far as Scotland is concerned, that the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act was in the hands of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. It would be out of order to refer to that at any length to-night, but I hope to live to see the day when the English Ministry of Agriculture will have handed over to the Scottish Board the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act. I feel certain that that would meet the views of the majority of Scottish agriculturists.

Captain ELLIOT: Nonsense—

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: It would certainly lead to better, more efficient and more economical administration of the Act.

Captain ELLIOT: Nonsense—

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: That is disputed in certain quarters.

Mr. J. GARDINER: Very doubtful quarters.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I will not pursue that subject further. The Minister of Agriculture has drawn attention to the Committee which he is setting up under the very able Chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). We welcome that Committee because we believe that prevention is better than cure. It is in that connection that I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to do all that lies in his power to further every effort that may be made on the part of private agricultural organisations to give more attention to the subject of research in animal diseases generally. There awaits a solution not only in this particular connection but in connection with the intricate question of diseases of the land, the problem of polluted pastures, and other problems of that nature. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to support any and every effort in this direction, and to give every assistance to investigators who undertake to examine these particular problems. I note with particular interest in
this connection the Report of the Advisory Committee on Research into Diseases of Animals, appointed by the Development Commission. That Report was issued quite recently, and it has particular reference to the subject which we are discussing to-night. The Report says:
Having regard to the position held by the United Kingdom in the stock-breeding world, the facilities for research existing at the five veterinary colleges constitute a national disgrace. It is essential that a cadre of research workers should be gradually created with varying assistance from State funds.
The Report goes on to draw attention to the creation in Scotland of the Scottish Animal Diseases Research Association, and the assistance already recommended by the Development Commissioner is welcomed by this Advisory Committee. They say:
Whatever the fate of this particular scheme, permanent facilities on an adequate scale should be provided in Scotland.
I feel sure that every English Member will agree with me that if it is advisable that assistance should be given for a research scheme such as that in Scotland, some assistance ought to be given to a similar scheme should the agricultural community in England embark upon it. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the effect of the money spent in the United States in the slaughter of cattle infected with foot-and-mouth disease, and I feel sure he will agree with me that any money spent in assisting investigation into animal diseases of all kinds will be money well spent, and money as economically spent as any that can be devoted to the purposes of the State. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind the association which has been started in Scotland, will be prepared to recommend to the Development Commissioners that they should definitely state the sums that they are prepared to devote towards its assistance, and that he will give every assistance that lies in his power to any scheme of this nature that may be submitted to him in future. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his full and adequate statement, and I feel sure that those of us who are interested in this particular question will continue to give him the support necessary to carry his schemes to fruition. At the same time,
I hope he will review, in the light of the Debate to-night, the isolation policy to which he has alluded.

Mr. HINDS: I regret that it is not possible to review many of the grievances from which agriculturists are suffering at the present time, but it has been ruled that we must confine ourselves to these two questions. I note with a great amount of pleasure that it is the intention of the Minister to appoint a Select Committee to go into the question of foot-and-mouth disease. I sat on a Committee which considered this question, and at that time we had many expert witnesses and spent many weeks in finding out the sources of infection. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) brought forward the theory to-night that this disease is caused by migratory birds. Looking at the evidence that was given before the Select Committee to which I have referred, I came away from that Select Committee with the feeling that the disease was caused by packing straws that came from the Continent. We found instances where packing straws had been sent in packing crates from factories to the farms and these packing cases had come from Holland and other places where the disease was rife. We traced the disease to that source. If the disease is carried by birds, it is a very singular thing that the Isle of Wight has been immune all these years. We have never heard of this disease in the Isle of Wight. I do not say that the birds may not carry the disease.
With regard to the terms of reference, I think the question of isolation rather than slaughter ought to be included. When I was a lad at home on the farm this disease affected a whole herd of cattle. Isolation was the method adopted at that time, and I do not think that we lost one single head of cattle from the disease. The policy of the Ministry in the recent outbreak has, however, been very successful, so that there is a good deal to be said for slaughter. I want to say a word with regard to notification. It is a very difficult question in Wales. One of the things we are suffering from to-day is that many large farms are far away from the towns, and the farmer does not know what the animal is suffering from for a long time. We know how this disease can float along in the air for miles and miles, then drop into a stream, and give infection to a herd of cattle
many miles away. The Board of Agriculture ought to do something with regard to transport in order to bring these areas into contact with the towns. They are so far away, and they suffer a great deal in this respect. I should like to add a word with regard to what has been said concerning restrictions in areas which have been immune. We have suffered a great deal this spring in connection with closed markets, and, although I know the right hon. Gentleman has done all ho can to reopen these markets, so many breeders are suffering that I would urge him to see that markets are reopened as quickly as possible so that these men do not suffer as they have suffered in the past.

Captain ERNEST EVANS: I should like to join in the congratulations which have been offered to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) on the way in which the Ministry have coped with this series of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. At the same time, I would emphasise what has already been said, that this outbreak and its whole history does show that the Ministry in the past has really not made the best of its opportunities, or, if it has, that it should have asked for further opportunities. I would like to press very much on the right hon. Gentleman the very extreme importance of his using all his influence in order to get such research as is possible on these and similar questions. Another thing I should like to impress upon him is that he should give publicity, either in connection with this Committee or in some other way, to the results of the researches his Department have already carried out with regard to the causes of the disease, the best way of preventing it, and any suggestions for curing it. It is very important that any information the Ministry have should be distributed as widely as possible in order that practical agriculturalists throughout the country who are very closely and intimately concerned in this question should, firstly, have an opportunity of knowing what the result of reasearch is, and, secondly—because here they may be able to help the right hon. Gentleman—of assisting the Ministry with other suggestions which may lead to more productive results
I have risen more especially to deal with another question which, although it may seem somewhat small to this House,
has great importance to remote agricultural districts. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hinds) has already referred to one aspect of this matter. I want to ask my right hon Friend to take all possible steps to see that the various Orders and 'Regulations which he issues with regard to foot-and-mouth disease reach the remote agricultural districts. I can assure him that there are districts which at the present time they are not reaching, and this causes very great hardship. There are districts of the country which have not the blessing of newspapers, and there fore they cannot learn of these Regulations in that way—

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: In Wales?

Captain EVANS: Yes, even in Wales, although the people make up for that by their natural abilities. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that there were very many cases of this nature in connection with the claims under the Corn Production Act. Usually where there is money about the news spreads, not perhaps so much in Wales as in Scotland, but it does spread. In that case, however, despite the fact that there was money in it, the farmers either did not know what they were entitled to or did not fill up their forms in time. I acknowledge with thankfulness the many cases which my right hon. Friend dealt with when I brought them before him. He met them all with courtesy, and some with considerable satisfaction to the farmers. In some remote districts of Wales, however, it is a very serious matter. These various Orders and Regulations do not reach them, and I would ask him whether he cannot take further steps to bring his Orders and Regulations to the notice even of farmers in the remotest districts.

Captain ELLIOT: With regard to the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, I simply wish to assure the Minister that the agricultural world is behind him, and will remain behind him, in the policy of slaughter. We are determined to get the country clear as we did in the past, and we know very well, as in 1883 when it ran up to 18,000 outbreaks and the loss was enormous, that the thing can be got rid of by slaughter. We are ready to stand by him, even if the loss falls on us to a certain extent, because
we know this is the only method that will clear the country of the disease. We are enormously indebted, and so is the whole agricultural community of Scotland, to the right hon. Gentleman for keeping the administration of these Measures under one authority. No one with any intelligence believes that the combating of this disease is helped by divided control in the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to speak for the whole of the agricultural community in Scotland.

Captain ELLIOT: I admit I am not entitled to speak for the whole of the agricultural community in Scotland, but I say that in regard to the great county of Lanark I have here a resolution from the authority representing the majority of the population of any single county which simply says:
The necessity for one central authority in connection with such a matter as diseases of animals is so apparent that any argument in its favour is superfluous.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I could read Resolutions to the contrary effect.

Captain ELLIOT: That, at any rate, is the opinion of the County Council of the great county of Lanark, and the opinion of practical men in Scotland is solidly in favour of one single authority for dealing with infectious diseases.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: It is not.

Captain ELLIOT: I am entitled to my opinion, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to his, but all I can say is that if this foolish and ridiculous nationalism that is spreading over the whole world now is to be carried into such ridiculous and trivial matters as the question whether we should have Scot land administered from Edinburgh because it suits people with fantastic and silly ideas about Scottish Home Rule— —

Lieut.,-Colonel MURRAY: Order, order—

Captain ELLIOT: I am entitled to my opinion in the matter. We have seen enough of the evils that nationalism creates throughout the world. Everybody knows that this is a sop to the ridiculous ideas of nationalism.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Order, order—

Captain ELLIOT: This is perfectly in order, and I am entitled to assume that a certain section of agricultural opinion in Scotland, to put it no higher, is extremely grateful to the Minister for protecting them from the attacks of meddlers who would take the campaign against infectious disease out of the hands of the central authority and split it up into sub-boards and sub-sub-boards because it would flatter the vanity of certain nationalists. I am not disposed to agree to any such policy as that, and I am sure nobody speaking for science would do so. The microbe is international, and the means for combatting it must be international. To try to introduce boundaries in Great Britain is one of the most retrograde steps that could be taken. I am not speaking in ignorance in this matter, because the study of disease—as well as animal disease-—is a question to which I have given a certain amount of my time. With regard to the report which is now in the Minister's hands of the Diseases of Animals Commission of the Development Commission, on which I had the honour to serve for over a year, I do hope he will give it his close attention, and that he will continue, as he has done, to consider that research into disease in this country is of the highest possible value in a country which is such a great centre for stock-breeding. I hope that he will be able to continue to administer the Development Commission and the fund, not in any narrow nationalistic sense, but as he is doing now, and to spend money in Aberdeen on research into the diseases of stock animals in Great Britain, not simply for the benefit of Scotch stock breeders, but so that money spent in one part of Great Britain will, be for the benefit of stock breeders in all parts of the country.
Considering the amount of money spent on feeding animals in this country the research that has been done into the scientific fundamentals which underlie the feeding of animals, and the diseases of animals that are being fattened for slaughter, has been practically negligible so far. We have but made a beginning. So far the Geddes axe has not cut it down, and I beg the Minister to use his utmost endeavours to see that the research that
has been started both at Cambridge and Aberdeen shall not be starved or cut down by any false ideas of economy. I am not speaking entirely in ignorance on this matter, because I spent some years of work in the institute at Aberdeen, and we believe that the work that has been done there is paying for itself already and will go on paying for itself over and over again. There is the whole question, for instance, of the disposal of the great surplus fish catches of Aberdeen. The utilisation of fish meal in the feeding of stock in this country is, in itself and by itself, a research which would repay all the money which could be spent in connection with that one institute. This huge surplus catch used to be disposed of in the German market which we have lost since the War, and unless we find some means of dealing with it now it has to be thrown into the sea. We have worked the system in Aberdeen and in other parts of the country by which an enormously valuable catch of fish can be used in the feeding of stock. That alone would repay all the money which the Minister is spending on research into the diseases of animals.
In that and a hundred other ways scientists believe that we can show value for every 1d. that is put into research. We have delivered the goods in the past, and we can continue to deliver them again in the future. That work of research into the diseases of animals has only just commenced. I am not so much referring to mere bug hunting and bacteriology, of which too much of the research into animal diseases in the past has consisted, but to researches such as those referred to by hon. Members opposite, for instance, research into diseased land which, in Scotland alone, is a subject of vast importance. There are whole countrysides which are almost unusable in Scotland because of these diseases, which we believe can be rooted out scientifically. I suppose that it would be out of order for me to refer to the amount of money that a country like South Africa is spending on research into animal disease. A single country, where there are fewer than 1,000,000 white people, is spending on one disease alone—the tsetse—over £10,000 and, owing to their success in discovering the cause, the price of land in Bechuanaland is mounting every day, the stock is being saved
from the disease, and the people are able to bring under cultivation whole country-sides of grass land which previously they had been unable to use.
There are countrysides in Scotland which we believe, by research, we can bring under cultivation or, at least, make stock bearing, as has been done with these countrysides in South Africa. A great many of our ideas as to reconstructions have had to be slopped, but let us continue to depend on the value of knowledge We have lost our wealth in this country All we have left is our brains and our science. If we use these we will get back all we have lost and more. I hope that the Minister so far from being discouraged by the great expenditure that he has had to undergo in connection with animal diseases will realise that this is a case not for less expenditure, but for more expenditure, and that it would be better to have preventive expenditure of £100,000 instead of the curative expenditure which we have now of over £1,000,000. The farmers of the country are coming more and more to the realisation of the enormous and immediate importance of research, and are willing to back up the Ministry almost to any length to which it is willing to go in promoting scientific knowledge of the development of agriculture in this country.

Major BARNES: I do not wish to intervene in this new phase of the old struggle between the highlands and lowlands of Scotland. I wish to ask a question about a Committee which is being set up. Before doing so I desire to congratulate the Minister and his Department on the way in which they have coped with this outbreak. I had not the good fortune to hear the whole of the speech of the Minister, and I am in some little doubt as to the kind of Committee which is being set up. I have heard it referred to as a Select Committee of the House, and as a Departmental Committee.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is a Departmental Committee.

Major BARNES: I understand that the Chairman is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). Part of the duty of the Committee will be to inquire into the causes of the recent outbreak. Will the inquiry include an
inquiry into the action of the local authorities, because some grave reflections have been made in respect to the local authority in Newcastle-on-Tyne? The Minister is probably aware that at the meeting of the Kent County Council Cattle Diseases Committee there was a quotation read from a letter which stated that had there been the slightest skilled inspection at Newcastle market, for example, the whole of this widespread outbreak might have been checked at the outset. The letter was written by a very prominent official in the Department.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Perhaps the hon. Member will remember that I stated in this House that the quotation was from a private letter, which was never intended for publication. The whole circumstances will be inquired into.

Major BARNES: I am not imputing to the Minister any responsibility. It is regrettable that this letter should have been published as it did acquire great publicity. People in Newcastle are sensitive about the imputation cast on their sanitary arrangements, and they are very anxious to get a very full and fair inquiry into this matter. In view of the fact that the question is really one between the Department and the local authorities, I was not sure that a Departmental Committee was the best way of getting at the truth, but since I have learned who the Chairman is to be, I think that fact is a guarantee that the local authority will get the fullest opportunity of removing this imputation from their administration and that the fullest and fairest inquiry will be made. I am glad to have had that assurance from the Minister.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I regret I was not present when the Minister made his statement in the early part of the evening, so perhaps the question I ask is of no purpose. I will, however, ask it. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the item N. under Appropriations-in-Aid, "Experiments in fruit preserving, and other items"? I know that during the War facilities were given to encourage the drying and preserving and bottling of fruit in the villages. There was much criticism at the time. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain how this money is forthcoming. I know what great advantage was gained from the scheme.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask a question or two about the trawler scheme. Before doing so, I would make a protest against the way the Supplementary Estimate is presented. I do not know that the Minister is responsible. It looks to me as if this form of presenting Supplementary Estimates is an attempt to hide the fact that whether for good or ill purposes a very large sum of money, about £750,000, is being expended. We are asked to vote only £10 because of "anticipated savings under other Subheads." These are anticipated savings which will appear in next year's financial Estimates, and will thus appear twice over, and although the trawler scheme has led to a loss of £250,000, an attempt is being made to cover that up, and to pretend that we are asking for only £10. It is another example of the loose financial methods to which we are accustomed. If there is any other explanation, perhaps we could have it.
I wish to ask a question or two about the employment of trawlers. I feel very acutely in this matter. A tremendous lot of fishermen returned from mine-sweeping and convoy work to find their places taken and no employment for them after the War. The Government started a scheme for using the surrendered German trawlers and the converted British mine-sweeping trawlers and drifters used for submarine hunting and so on, and letting them out to fishermen on suitable terms. These men were to run the trawlers and drifters in England on the same lines as Scottish fishermen have for generations run their fishing vessels in the North of Scotland, on a sort of family co-operative scheme—quite a sound scheme, in which each man owns a share of the boat. The Minister approached various Members in this House, including myself, and asked us to push the scheme in our constituencies. I am always ready to help the Government, especially in anything good, and I went down to my constituency and addressed some meetings on this very point. I found the fishermen rather sticky. They were afraid. They did not like risking their War gratuities in the scheme. They were afraid of too much control by the Government, and were particularly afraid of Admiralty control. They thought they would be compulsorily enrolled in the Reserve and that sort of thing. We did our best in Hull to get the men to invest their savings in
these trawlers, and we hoped the scheme would become self-supporting. Now the whole thing seems to have fallen through. What has happened? We are asked here for £245,000, being the losses, apparently, and there is an Appropriation-in-Aid which is mixed up with fruit preserving and other items, and we do not know what the Appropriation-in-Aid will be for trawlers. The fact is that the scheme has gone to pieces.
There were certain wise heads in the fishing trade who always said it would go to pieces, and there were other people, rather jealous of the idea, who thought the men would get specially favourable terms and that a sort of subsidised fishing industry would be started to compete with private enterprise. The fact remains that this scheme has not succeeded. Is this the last commitment that we shall be- called upon to face? Has the scheme definitely failed or are we carrying on with it? What are the main causes of the failure? Of course, the industry has gone through a bad time for months. There has been a glut of fish. Reference has been made to the loss of the German market. Owing to the restriction of the export of fish during the War the Latin countries are now taking salt fish from other sources. This scheme, therefore, was started at a bad time. In addition to that it is stated by some of the men who went into the scheme and risked everything, and now find themselves in a rotten concern, that they could not get ice and coal, especially ice, and the owners say that they have their capital in the ice-making concerns, that there is not enough ice to go round, and that they are entitled to the first call on the plant. The Government ought to have looked into that in the first instance instead of, as it were, going off at the deep end, partly, I believe, with the idea of giving employment to a number of extra bureaucrats. I do not pretend to know the why and the wherefore of this scheme failing, and I ask for such explanation as can be given. I think the scheme was thoroughly sound at its inception, but that the administration or the lack of foresight, or lack of support from the men themselves, has led to failure. This is not the first payment that we have been asked to make.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I do not propose to follow the last speaker on the subject of
trawling, beyond expressing the hope that if he catches fish so successfully, and it can be utilised for cattle food, that will be a very welcome addition to the food supplies of cattle farmers throughout the country. This Debate has gone chiefly on whether slaughter or isolation is the better method of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. An hon. Member alluded to the fact that it was supposed to be beneficial to cattle to have foot-and-mouth disease, and that they did so much better afterwards than before. That will hardly cause much fear in the breasts of cake merchants and others. It takes so long for cattle to recover status after an attack that we can rule that out. At the same time, it is a dangerous side track which may attract the attention of the unwary. I would remind the Minister that a short time ago he did me the honour, as Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, to call a meeting in order that he might put his policy before it. The meeting consisted of the Central Chamber, of representatives of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, of members of the Central Landowners' Association, of other bodies, and of a considerable number of Members of this House who are interested in agriculture. They were extremely pleased with the Minister for coming to that meeting and addressing them, and they impressed upon him how cordially they supported him in the policy of slaughter. We say it is the one policy which will stamp out this disease, although we fully recognise that the financial state of the country, at some time, may be such as will prevent that policy being carried out in its entirety.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask my right hon. Friend before he replies if he can give us some information as to the Appropriations-in-Aid which appear at the end of the Paper? It is stated that additional receipts are expected from the employment of trawlers, from experimental fruit preserving, and from other items amounting to £199,990. Can he inform the Committee how much he is to get from the fruit preserving experiments?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will answer that question at once. Of the Appropriations-in-Aid, amounting to £199,000 odd, £190,000 is in respect of receipts from trawlers, with which I dealt when I introduced the Estimate. The greater part of
the balance is in respect of the fruit preserving experimental stations. That really answers the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. Commander Ken-worthy), who, after charging us with loose finance, proceeded to say that we had lost £245,000 on running trawlers. That was a very loose statement, because as a matter of fact we only lost £55,000, which is rather different from £240,000. As regards this particular Admiralty scheme for the ex-service men, I did not wish to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but as a matter of fact it has absolutely nothing to do with this particular vote. It is an Admiralty scheme quite part from the Ministry of Agriculture, and I have nothing whatever to do with it As far as I can make out from the hon. and gallant Member's own statement, it was a thoroughly sound scheme to begin with. He advocated it in Hull, and after that it came to grief.

Lieut.-Commander KENW0RTHY: It is still going on.

10.0 P.M.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: You must ask the Admiralty about it, I cannot tell you. Regarding the Debate generally, I am much indebted to the Committee for the exceedingly kind manner in which they have received this demand for a large additional sum, especially for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease and for the general support which the policy of the Ministry has received. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) asked on what principle did we decide upon the policy we were going to pursue. I confess this was a totally unprecedented state of affairs. For years past Ministers of Agriculture adopted a policy of slaughter, which was the established policy to deal with isolated cases. An outbreak would occur, a circle was drawn around that place, movement was stopped within that area, slaughter took place, and, as I have said, the average cost was £9,000 a year. I found myself suddenly confronted by a situation without precedent. No Board and no Minister had ever been faced with such a situation before. I felt the only thing I could do was to carry out the policy of protecting the flocks and herds of the country in the best way I could. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Townley) has said, I did the best I could to
obtain agricultural advice. I consulted the Central Chamber, I summoned two special meetings of the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and I gathered that the general consensus of opinion was that we must carry out the slaughter policy and stamp out this disease at almost any cost. I am glad to say, when I conveyed that advice to my colleagues in the Government, they were prepared to support me in the policy. At the same time I recognise there were certain limits beyond which we could not go. For example, had the disease become absolutely epidemic, if it were spreading from farm to farm and going through the country like a wave of influenza, obviously the slaughter policy would fail. If, on the other hand, we pretty well traced the outbreak to common sources or common origins, then we were justified in going on with the slaughter policy. There was a further limitation. I recognised from the first that we must not destroy our splendid pedigree flocks and herds, if it were possible to save them by isolation. There were two reasons for this. First we did not want to destroy the pedigree herds which have made this country practically the stud farm of the world, and secondly the cost in compensation in the case of pedigree herds would be extraordinarily large. Then, after advice, I agreed that the policy of isolation might be extended in other cases where we could do it with safety. One test which I always put and which my officers have carried out is this: Can we isolate on this farm or in these buildings, even in the case of non-pedigree animals, in such a manner that there is no practical fear of the spread of disease?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) asked whether in those cases the animals are all confined to buildings? The answer is that in nearly every case they are. There have been one or two cases where, for example, sheep have been isolated outside, and some cattle have been isolated in fields of a limited area right away from other animals and from country roads. I realise that you are running the risk of birds or dogs carrying the infection. Whatever you do, you must run some risk, and we have tried to minimise that risk to the utmost of our ability. My right hon. Friend also asked, in this connection, whether isolation will not, to some extent, lengthen the period
during which the restriction's will remain in force? That is true, but that would have been the case even if I had confined isolation to the case of pedigree herds.
As regards the restrictions generally, may I tell the Committee the principle upon which we have acted? When the disease was at its height, as a precaution we felt it necessary to schedule the whole country, and to refuse to allow any movement whatever. We imposed what is called a standstill order all over the country. The result of that was that we were able to confine the disease within certain more or less limited areas, and great parts of the country, for example, practically the whole of Wales, the whole South and West of England, and the whole of North-East Scotland has been kept entirely free of the disease. We have liberated from control all those areas, and as the area of infection gradually contracts—as I am glad to say it has been doing—we intend by degrees to reduce in size these areas, and to free as quickly as possible the areas now subject to restriction. If I am asked how long it will take to remove the restrictions altogether, it is impossible to answer. We have two different classes of areas First, those which we call infected, where the disease is worst. Practically no movement is allowed there, and even such things as dispersal sales are forbidden in those areas. We have other areas where the restrictions are of a minor character and are easier to get over, where, indeed, movement is permitted by means of licence from the local authority. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead asked a question as to the conditions under which these licences for movement were granted. They are granted in all cases by the local authority which receives the animals. Of course, it would be quite impossible for any central body to control movement all over the country. It must depend on the local authority, and the local authority responsible is the authority which is willing or unwilling to receive the animal. In the case of the outbreak at Brighton, I am aware that animals were allowed to go there.

Mr. CAUTLEY: To an uninfected area.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, but it was the Brighton authority that gave the permission to move. Fortunately, there has been no extension there, and we were
able to deal with the question at once, but that is one of the very questions that should be gone into by the new Committee—the relations between the central authority and the local authorities, how far the local authorities have been able adequately to do their duty on the present occasion, and if further powers ought to be granted to the local authorities. In that connection I am glad to assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) that the question of what occurred in Newcastle will be thoroughly investigated by the Committee without any prejudice, and the fact that a private letter expressing the opinion of one of my officers was published was a regrettable incident for which neither he nor I was responsible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne asked me two other questions. He asked how that money is going to be dealt with. Well, we propose to pay into the Local Taxation Account in this financial year this additional sum of £400,000, and we propose that for this year £250,000 shall be taken out of the Local Taxation Account, and in the coming year up to £250,000, that is to say that whatever is the correct figure representing half the cost of the outbreak will be taken out of the Local Taxation Account.

Mr. ACLAND: If it costs more than £1,000,000, will the right hon. Gentleman put some more in?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If it cost more than £1,000,000, I should have to reconsider the position, and perhaps come to the House for a further Vote, but I cannot speak definitely about that at the present moment. If £250,000 is taken out of the Local Taxation Account this year and a similar sum next year, that will mean that the Account will be reduced by about one thirty-second of its total amount, and the resulting charge on the rates will be about a farthing in the pound. I do not think, having regard to the magnitude of the danger, that that is a very serious charge to place upon the rates of this country. My right hon. friend asked me also about prosecutions and actions taken at law with regard to people who did not notify having the disease on their premises, and who really contributed to its spread by not informing the Ministry. We do not intend
that there should be any undue delay in dealing with these cases. One case already has been dealt with and a fine imposed, and wherever we have found that there has been serious carelessness of that sort we shall deal drastically with the matter. My right hon. Friend and many other hon. Members, including the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Captain Evans), have spoken about research and the necessity of obtaining all possible knowledge of the disease. The position with regard to research is this. My right hon. Friend the late Minister of Agriculture appointed a Committee of scientific experts to investigate this matter about a year and a half ago. They embarked upon investigations, they had a ship in the North Sea with cases of infection on board, they tried in every way to ascertain the cause of the disease and how it was spread, and they tried to discover the bacillus, but apparently it is a very small animal and a very elusive thing, and it appears to have got through any sieve they could provide, and their investigations came to nought. In fact, they wrote and informed me, some months ago now, that they had made no progress, and they proposed therefore that the investigation should come to an end, as they could make no headway whatever.
Under those circumstances. I felt that I could not require them to continue their investigations, but, in view of what has happened since, it is perfectly clear that we cannot leave the matter there, and I think the better plan would be not to have an investigation confined to this country only, but to try and do something on international lines. After all, we do not know much about the disease here. One of my hon. Friends from Wales said that most of the farmers did not know the disease when they saw it. That at all events is a great tribute to the success attending our efforts in stamping it out in the past, but we do not know very much about it here, and on the Continent they always have it. The plan that I am suggesting now—and I am taking steps to get it carried through the Foreign Office-is that we should undertake some kind of international inquiry, with people in France, Germany, Holland, Switzerland, and other countries, where they may have
better opportunities of studying the disease.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The League of Nations.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: One hon. Member objected that the Ministry of Agriculture had been unwilling to make tests of various serums and "cures" which have been suggested to us in the last few weeks. I have had hundreds of remedies suggested, and I have been asked by all kinds of people to carry out tests, but what would carrying out tests mean in this country? It would mean that we should have to keep the disease going in order that the various remedies might be tried, and, in view of the difficulties we have had in stamping it out on this and other occasions, I am not prepared to do that. I much prefer that these experiments should be carried out in countries abroad where they always have the disease; but I can assure the Committee that I feel very strongly that more science is wanted, that we must, if we can, carry out this international inquiry, and I go further. I think in the whole matter of animal diseases there is a great deal more to be learned, and I hope that part of the money voted for education and research, and a substantial part, at the time of the repeal of the Corn Production Acts may be devoted to carrying out some big scheme of animal pathology, which I think is badly needed in this country. I will not go into the acrimonious discussion between various Scottish Members as to whether there should be one or two authorities, except to say this: while I yield to nobody in my respect for Scottish institutions, I regard foot-and-mouth disease as one front, and you must have unity of command, and I think a division of command would mean failure. As a matter of fact, at the very outset of this outbreak, I put myself into close touch with the Scottish Office. On the Advisory Committee of the Ministry, which has been advising me, there are two Scottish representatives, and there will be two Scottish members on the new Departmental Committee. Therefore, we have endeavoured to take Scottish opinion along with us. Speaking generally, I feel that, under very difficult circumstances, we have endeavoured to stamp out this disease, and our efforts have not been unsuccessful. In the light of our present
knowledge, we must continue this policy of stamping out, and keeping the country clear, if we can. If we can only discover how the disease originates, and how it spreads, we may be able to resort to better methods in the future, but, for the time being, I hope the Committee will give me this Vote.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about fruit preservation?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg pardon; I thought I had. There is a place we started during the War for experimentation with fruit preserving in Gloucestershire. It has been, on the whole, very successful, and the receipts have been above what we budgetted for at the beginning of the year.

Captain ELLIOT: May I express a hope that research on international lines will not be limited to a narrow front, but will keep in mind the extraordinary value of the flank attack in science, as in war, as, for instance, Dr. Eagle Clark, on the migration of birds, and to remember that often by disconnected avenues you do eventually find the path? Bacteriological investigations merely on pathological lines are very often unfruitful, whereas by wider research, say in Heligoland, you find a key to the whole problem which baffles the scientist. It is in little things that the key may be lying hid. It is well not to take too narrow a view, but to take a wide view of research in a subject which has been so puzzling and baffling as this foot-and-mouth disease.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I rather gathered from the Minister that this international inquiry was to be confined to foot-and-mouth disease; or was it to include the subject of animal diseases generally?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: So far as the international inquiry goes, I propose to make it specifically on foot-and-mouth disease. Apart from that altogether, I hope we may start some institution of research into animal diseases in this country, which I think very desirable.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I hope in that connection the Minister will bear in mind the value of private effort—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: —as that brings the agricultural community directly into taking a real interest in the whole subject.

Mr. A. HERBERT: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to have an inquiry into agricultural affairs and the diseases of animals, I wonder if he will possibly extend the scope of that inquiry into the question of prices and combines?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid there is nothing about such matters in this Vote.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Would this international inquiry deal with the question of tuberculosis?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I really think we had better take one thing at a time. The specific thing is foot-and-mouth disease. That is the great trouble with which we have had to deal in the last few weeks.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Foot-and-mouth disease at the moment is an acute problem, but the question of tuberculosis in cattle—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that does not arise on this Vote.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to-defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922 for additional expenditure on the following Air Services, namely:—

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the
£
£


Air Force
303,400



Vote 2. Quartering Stores (except Technical) Supplies, and Transport
110,700



Vote 3. Technical and Warlike Stores
234,000



Vote 4. Works, Buildings, and Lands
111,000



Vote 9. Experimental and Research Services
43,450





802,550


Deduct Excess Appropriations-in-Aid and Surpluses on Votes 6 and 9

802,540


Net Amount

10."

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): In this Supplementary-Estimate presented to the Committee I first of all am asking for £10. The state-
ment, which has been in the Vote Office for the last few days, fully explains the Supplementary Estimate, its necessity, and the method of financial transfer involved. A fuller statement, giving the figures, will be all that is required to those accustomed to handling these papers. I think I can assist the House in a few words by explaining the matter to them in somewhat simpler language. There are three items. The first is for £450,000, which is the Appropriation-in-Aid for the Middle East Department to defray the expenses incurred by the Air Ministry. The second item of £309,100 relates to the coal strike of last year. The third item of £43,000 is for Air Ministry research. The way in which the Appropriation-in-Aid is required is simple. In February of last year the Air Ministry asked for £1,100,000 for Middle East expenditure. Since that date it has been decided by Parliament that a Middle East Department should be set up, and that the moneys required should be shown on Colonial Vote Class V. of the Civil Service Estimates. At a later stage of the year the Secretary of State for the Colonies obtained from this House a similar sum of money, and, in addition, he estimated for a further sum of £440,000, which exactly makes up the money required for the Middle East Department. In asking for this Supplementary sum I am merely carrying out the Parliamentary procedure necessary to obtain this Appropriation-in-Aid. The second item, relating to the coal strike, on page 4 of the Paper, shows that it is for emergency measures due to the coal dispute. It will be remembered that the House passed the necessary supplementaries for the Army and the Navy expenditure on that occasion. The Air Ministry did not ask for money at that time, as they were able to defray the amount of £309,000 out of surpluses. The third item of £43,000 relates to research work, and is obtained thus: The Civil Service Estimates include a much bigger sum of a little over £200,000, which comes- on the Vote under the, heading of National Physical Laboratory, and the share of the work done for the Air Ministry has been apportioned at £43,000. We ask in this Supplementary Estimate the authority of the Committee to place that amount to our debit. As regards the £450,000 from the Middle East Vote, the increase in the
Apprcpriation-in-Aid has already been voted, and it is merely a matter of the Committee recording its authority for the transfer. With regard to the total of £309,100 and £42,450, those moneys we propose to find out of the original Air Estimate for Iraq of £1,100,000 which the House voted last year. That money in the ordinary way would be handed back to the Treasury for the purpose of bookkeeping. It has been put to us that the proper method would be to use a portion of that money in these two items, and this is the method by which the moneys are returned.
Further, there is the customary Supplementary Estimate to draw attention to major works completing the sum of £2,000 each and upwards which has been undertaken during the current year, but are new to the House in so much as they are new policy. There are three items, one is for Iraq regimental and technical accommodation. Items 2 and 3 are for Egypt. These are as a matter of fact covered by a grant last year for dealing with the then proposed policy of aerodrome development in Egypt. The House granted £163,000 then. That policy was not undertaken, but the aerodromes in use had to be repaired and generally made efficient, and Item 3 shows that some temporary improvement has been made and provision for petrol storage. Items 4 and 5 deal with Palestine. These charges are more than met by the item in the Estimates of last year. The saving will appear in the Estimates which will be presented to-morrow. One other item is the last one under Vote 9 on the last page of the Paper. It is accommodation for instrument design establishment at, Farnborough. This is a new policy which will make a permanent economy. This year it will cost £20,000, and we hope that it will give us a permanent economy of at least £15,000 a year.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: My hon. and gallant Friend has just said he is not really asking for any more money from the Committee, but only a token Vote. Let us see what that really means. The hasty perusal I have been able to give to the papers has produced this result: that this sum of £450,000 consists of surpluses on certain Air Votes that are excess Appropriations-in-aid, received from the Middle East Department. As my hon. and gallant Friend says, the ordinary course to be adopted in these
circumstances is that these sums should fall into the General Fund and be so much saved in the course of the financial transactions of the year. But acting, as I understand, on the advice of the Treasury, what he says is this: "You have got so near the end of the financial year, and there are certain expenses which have been incurred under certain heads, why not take the money to make up these deficiencies out of the surpluses and call it all square? "That is phrasing it in rather popular language, but' it is certainly what is involved in this financial statement. My real point of criticism however is this. This is another example of the utter helplessness of this House properly to control its expenditure. Just look at the last item to which my hon. Friend referred. I am not criticising it, I have no knowledge for doing so, but I see there is a sum of £40,000 for accommodation for an instrument-designing establishment. If we are going to have an Air Service, obviously it is necessary to have the very best designs, because the men engaged in the Air Service follow not only a very arduous profession, but an extremely risky one.
This shows the course of business with regard to financial control. This is a Supplementary Estimate presented within five or six days of the end of the financial year. It is a proposal which ought to have very careful examination by the Committee, but what do we find It is brought on at 35 minutes to Eleven o'clock, when there are only a few Members in the House, and possibly only two or three specially qualified to deal with the subject. You will never get anything like proper control of the nation's finances until this method of dealing with our business is put an end to. My hon. and gallant Friend cannot deny that this is not a proper way of dealing with this business. This is, I suppose, the last Supplementary Estimate we shall have for the current financial year, but, if I am right in my calculations, since we re-assembled we have been called upon to vote from £10,000,000 to £15,000,000—one deals so easily now in millions in Supplementary Estimates—although they concern matters requiring very careful consideration at the hands of the Committee. We must pass it to-day; we cannot help ourselves. The Government time is fully pledged right up to the
end of the financial year, and this is the only opportunity we shall have of dealing with the question. It is only owing to the fact that the Vote in front of this has taken a much shorter time to discuss than was anticipated that we have something approaching three-quarters of an hour in which to deal with this particular estimate. I cannot complain of my right hon. Friend. He is only the more or less unhappy instrument in this business of handling this most important matter. I cannot follow him in all that he said; I have only a general idea that this is not the right way of doing these things. I understand that the Air Estimates will come on to-morrow, but the time will be taken up with general questions affecting the vital principles of the conduct of the Air Service, and all sort of questions will arise. None of these matters here, however, such as the transference of these sums to the Middle East Department, will be mentioned at all to-morrow, but they ought to be thoroughly discussed. This is only another example of the extraordinary, lamentable muddle in which the whole of our defensive forces are getting tangled up, owing to the army within an army which we have controlling military efforts in the Middle East.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask one or two questions before this Estimate is passed. To begin with, Vote 9, on page 7, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, seems to me to be a completely new service. I did not gather that the Secretary of State for Air alluded to it as such. It was a little difficult to hear everything that he said at the Box, but, as far as I can see, Vote 9, on page 7, is a new service. It is for "Accommodation for Instrument Design Establishment, Farnborough, £40,000," of which £20,000 is required this year and £20,000 next year. If that is a new service, as I think it is, why is it suddenly put into this Vote at the end of the year? It should be included to-morrow in the Estimates for the coming year. It is a bad principle to take a new service and put it into the Supplementary Estimate on the 20th March, when within two or three days an Estimate will be introduced for 1922–23. It gives an idea of there being economies in this year's Vote which really would not be the case if a new service of this sort were put into its proper place,
namely, in this year's Vote, and not in last year's. Then I see on page 2 the following:
Towards meeting the cost of the emergency measures taken during the coal dispute, estimated at £309,100.
I do not quite know what the Air Service did in the coal dispute. I should have thought they would have been more useful underground than high up above the ground in the sky. This sum of £309,100 seems a very large one to have been spent on emergency measures during the coal dispute, and I think we ought to have some explanation as to how it is arrived at. Then there is a further sum of £43,450
towards meeting the increase of research work carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
Those are very long words, but what does it mean? What is the scientific and industrial research? Is it for aeroplanes, or what is it?

Captain GUEST: The whole of that money has been expended on industrial and scientific research for all the Departments of State. We have only a share of it.

Sir F. BANBURY: Why should you go into industrial research? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) is interested in research, but I do not think we should contribute, under the Air Service, to research such as that upon which he enlightened us a little time ago. On Vote 2 there is I. Appropriation-in-Aid, £110,700, and N. Appropriation-in-Aid, £234,000. I rather wanted to find out what that was, and I turned over the page to look for I. and N. Whether my eyesight is bad or not I do not know, but I can neither find I. nor N. anywhere in this book. What is the use of putting I. and N. when there is no I. or N. anywhere? There is no explanation of what these Appropriations-in-Aid are, which amount to a very considerable sum. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give us those explanations. Vote 9, Experimental and Research Service, £43,450, D. There is a D. That is something. What the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said is quite true. Apparently the Vote is for £10 and the Secretary of State enlarged upon that £10, but it really is for £802,000, which has been saved, and which ought to go
in reduction of the National Debt. Probably they are for further expenditure on the part of the Air Service. What we are really asking the Committee to do is to take £802,000, which ought to have gone in the reduction of the National Debt, and transfer it to certain extra expenditures which have been incurred during 1921–22 by the Air Service. So it is really a very much bigger amount than appears on the face of it.

Colonel GRETTON: I wanted to make the point that has been made by my right hon. Friend that this House is really asked to vote not £10 but £802,550, money that is taken from the Exchequer and put into these Votes. I do not want to say anything discourteous or disrespectful to the Minister of Air, but really a more inadequate and confusing statement I have seldom heard from a Minister. It is difficult to understand why this money is required. These Votes are made up in a way which certainly to casual and quick investigation is quite inexplicable. Very large sums are involved. On Vote 1 there is an item for "Pay and personal allowances of men," £214,800; on Vote 3, "Aeroplanes, seaplanes, engines and spares," £156,000; and on Vote 4, "New Works and Buildings," £111,000. Not one word of explanation has been given of these items. It looks very much as if the Air Ministry had gone to the Treasury and said, "We have overspent ourselves under various heads, and we come to you to find a surplus in order to meet these amounts." That is a very bad way to keep accounts. If a Supplementary Estimate of this magnitude is to be put forward it should be presented to the House at an earlier date so that there might be investigation and some unravelling of what is meant by the Vote. On the last two Votes, Vote 4, for Works, Buildings and Lands, and Vote 9, Experimental and Research Services, we are not only asked to pay very consider able sums amounting to £360,000 in the one case, and £20,000 in the other, but we are committing ourselves to further expenditure in the forthcoming year, because there are other amounts required to complete works amounting to nearly £120,000 on this Estimate, which may be exceeded. In that case it will be said that so much has already been spent on the authority of this House that we are bound to finish the work. That is the way in which business is done in this House.
When the Air Ministry was established I was one of only two or three Members who protested. I protested because I knew that it was strategically and tactically unsound to have a separate service, independent in its organisation, administration, and so forth, under the command of a separate Ministry when in a period of War it would have to operate under either naval or military command. I also objected on the ground that the new Ministry meant very largely increased expenditure and that it was a wasteful expedient. This Vote is an illustration of the great expenditure incurred by a separate Air Ministry. In regard to the Vote for "Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough," we might ask for further explanation. What is meant? Is this experimental and research service to be a place where experts test various instruments and designs submitted for investigation and approval 1 If so, it is a reasonable and proper, part of the equipment of the Air Service; but if it is intended to set up a designing establishment for Air Force design, I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the great evil and the great waste of expenditure which has resulted from that kind of method when applied to the Army and Navy. Constantly we have had experts employed by the Army and Navy particularly the Army. Certain army officers have designed small arms, machine guns, artillery, and so forth. They were constantly producing designs which were failures. They took a little bit of one, a little bit of another, and added a bit on their own, and the consequence was in one case we had a rifle which was designed by the army authorities, When we had ordered hundreds of thousands, and large numbers had been made, it was found that this rifle was much inferior to the foreign rifle. Then this rifle had to be supplied with different ammunition, and the result was that we had an inferior rifle which was unsatisfactory, which kicked men's shoulders abominably, and which had to be replaced by another.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going rather a long way back.

Colonel GRETTON: I am dealing with a matter of administration and the un-desirability of employing men who have not an unbiased mind in the matter of
design, and who become jacks of all trades and masters of none. At any rate, that is the tendency. I think I have given some reasons why there should be further investigation of this Vote, further explanation of the large demands involved, and particularly of what we are committing ourselves to by voting £20,000 for the experimental establishment at Farnborough.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer in connection with the recent policy of the Government relating to the British Army. I notice that large sums are to be spent on various aircraft establishments in Egypt and elsewhere, accommodation for flying schools and so forth, and also in Palestine, where large sums are to be expended. I take it those sums are already spent. The Committee might reasonably ask to be informed whether the expenditure on these particular establishments in Egypt and Palestine comes to an end with this particular Vote, or whether further sums will be required next year. These matters are subjects of importance, and we shall never secure economy in administration and expenditure until we do insist on these occasions in probing into these various matters and having a full explanation from the Ministers concerned. I do not wish to be discourteous or tiresome, but it is a serious matter to be asked to vote £802,000, and we should have adequate explanation of what it is for.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
There is only £10 shown, so I cannot make it more. I should like to make it £800,000, but that would not be in order. Hon. Members will have this satisfaction, however, that if we beat the Government we shall get rid of the most squanderous Government there has ever been. The amount of my reduction is not the measure of my dissatisfaction. I wish to support what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said about flying schools in Egypt, for which £87,000 is asked. The Government's Egyptian policy is still in an unsettled state.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot go into that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Without touching on the question of the
Government policy in Egypt, may I ask what have been the training schools in that part of the world up to now and why is this very large sum to be spent on a training school there? I know that the facilities in Egypt for training pilots are very good. We trained many there during the War. But these items show that the Ministry are still in the luxurious frame of mind in which they were in war time when money was plentiful and they could spend what they liked. All this money is being expended without the approval of this Committee. That is the iniquitous part of it. The same thing applies to expenditure on barracks in Iraq, £220,000. We have been told over and over again that troops have been pouring out of Iraq month after month. I remember in 1920 we were asked to vote a cool £1,000,000 for barracks for troops there. The Colonial Secretary said it was necessary, in view of the climate, that the troops should live in solid masonry establishments. If these barracks were suitable for troops, why are they not suitable for airmen? The garrison in Iraq is reduced to normal dimensions now, and there must be a tremendous lot of accommodation available. I would like some explanation as to why this extra sum is being expended. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) referred to the expenditure of £300,000 incurred during the coal stoppage, and asked what these men were doing. I happen to be in a position to tell to a certain extent. Everyone who ever served in the Air Service in any capacity was called up and sent to one or other of various camps. One of these camps to which a friend of mine was sent was at Eastchurch. These men who had gone back into civil life as barristers, stockbrokers, and so on, and, who never could fly and were never intended to fly, were kept kicking their heels about in this muddy camp at East-church. They nearly all had military titles such as colonel and so on. They never did any service. Their business suffered, and they were given unlimited leave and free passes up to the City every day at the expense of the taxpayers. That was the kind of thing that went on because there was a coal stoppage.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

REPORT [17TH MARCH].

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART MENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Cost of certain Miscellaneous War Services.

Resolution read a Second time.

It being after Eleven of the Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, further consideration of the Resolution stood adjourned.

Resolution to be further considered To-morrow.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS [MONEY].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That it is expedient that the limitation of one hundred and forty thousand pounds imposed by Section eighteen of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, on the moneys which may be provided by Parliament towards defraying the costs in such Section mentioned and be paid to the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account for Great Britain shall not apply to moneys so provided in the current financial year."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

FABRIC GLOVES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Captain W. BENN: I rise to call attention to the very extraordinary position in which the Government find themselves in
reference to the duty upon fabric gloves. Some hon. Members may remember that there is on the Statute Book an Act called the Safeguarding of Industries Act, an Act from which very much good was expected by its promoters and supporters. Some called it an umbrella, some called it a dose of strychnine, the President of the Board of Trade called it a little kitten. It was passed amid acclamation by this House, and we waited with impatience the good work which it was to perform. Part II of this Act is specially operative against the flood of manufactures which will come in under the shelter of the depreciated exchange from Continental countries.
The House will, perhaps, remember the machinery which was proposed. Certain facts were to be ascertained. We protested at the outset that no Order should be made by the Board of Trade, that it should not be the function of a Government Department to impose a duty, but that it should be done after inquiry by the House. Accordingly, it was provided that a Committee should be set up which should investigate all the facts set out to be investigated by the Act, that they should then Report, and if it were found from the Report that the protection of the Act was desirable, an Order should be made. The House was anxious to retain its own power and right to make this Order. I myself introduced a short Bill, which was received without any opposition, for preserving to this House its undoubted rights over the taxation of the subject. The Minister of Health, who is not present at the moment, but who was one of the champions of the Act, said if a complaint were well founded an Order would be made. Everybody who supported the Act imagined that if these committees
investigated the facts and found them to be of the character to which the Act was intended to apply, an Order would be made and the employers and the workpeople would receive the benefit of this remarkable Measure.
Such a case has now occurred. Five or six inquiries have been made in the case of fabric gloves. The Committee; found, as far as we can learn, that all the conditions set out in the Act had in fact occurred. We believe that the Committee agreed to recommend that the duty should be imposed, and the benefit of this beneficent Act should come into operation. It was on the 26th January when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade received that report. Now we are nearing the 26th March, and still he refuses to administer the dose of strychnine, or to let loose the little kitten, or even to erect the umbrella on behalf of the poor people who are claiming the support and protection which he himself promised. The House did not even pass over this small case of gloves without debating it in the course of the passage of this Act. The late hon. Member for Louth gave the case of gloves as an illustration, and the Leader of the House, in replying, said he did not think that, supposing an Order were not made, it very much mattered to the manufacturer, but it mattered profoundly to the workman; and he led us to believe that, if the case were proved in respect of this very article, protection would be afforded.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Eleven minutes after Eleven of the Clock till To-morrow.